WolfeNotes.com

Indictment Cites Lobbying On DEP Permits, Remediation, And Approvals

Piñata Part 4

Well, there it is, right out in the open in paragraph f. on page 55 of the Attorney General’s Indictment of George Norcross (see above).

DEP is directly involved, as I knew they must be.

The next steps are filing additional OPRA requests to expose who the Norcross developers were talking to at the DEP and what they were talking about while

seeking the requisite permits and approvals for the environmental remediation, redevelopment and renovation of Radio Lofts

Like I said, this is getting interesting.

Developer Sought Local Rezoning To Reduce Cleanup Costs

Piñata Part 3

We’ve long criticized flaws in NJ DEP’s toxic site cleanup program for, among many other things, allowing developers and local governments to weaken cleanup requirements by zoning land from residential to commercial or industrial uses.

Cleanup standards are far weaker for industrial sites and as a result, cleanup costs are reduced and a lot of toxic contamination is left on site to continue to poison the environment and community.

Often times, the media ignores this abuse ,or when it is reported, downplays the significance, or makes the issue ambiguous or a he said/she said kind of routine dispute.

One of the most notorious examples of this kind of rezoning – cleanup standards abuse occurred at the Ford toxic site in Ringwood.

So, while I was not surprised to read it, the Attorney General’s indictment of George Norcross et al makes that abuse very clear (see above text). Official documents vindicate our criticism.

Perhaps this aspect of the indictment could prompt more media coverage of this abuse, deter local governments from engaging in it, and pressure the Legislature to close these loopholes in NJ cleanup laws.

Norcross Lobbyists Provided Access To Draft Regulations Prior To The Public Process

Lobbyist Given Secret Regulatory Favor

Similar Corrupt Practices Are Widespread In NJ State Government

Piñata Part 2

As a longtime DEP regulatory practitioner and external DEP watchdog, as I read it, the Norcross indictment document is proving to be a giant piñata of corruption.

The text above is an excerpt from page 19 of NJ Attorney General Platkin’s indictment of George Norcross et al. Focus on the phrase “prior to any public comment period on the applicable regulations”, because that is where the corruption is exposed.

The excerpt shows that a Norcross lobbyist was provided access to EDA and given an opportunity to make secret changes to EDA draft regulations before the regulatory public process.

Because the Norcross requested change to the regulatory provision in question was drafted BEFORE any public process, there is no accountability, because the EDA draft regulatory documents and the lobbyists’ email request are not public documents and not part of the administrative record on the rule in question.

Under legally required “public notice and comment” regulatory procedures, the Norcross lawyer lobbyist would have to submit public comments on proposed draft EDA regulation and EDA would have to publish both the lobbyists’ comment and the EDA response (in this case, granting the special request by the Norcross lobbyist). 

Given that this regulatory favor by EDA is a fact that is included in the indictment, one can assume that it represents, at best, improper activity, wrongdoing, or possible criminal activity.

This is an example of a subtle and arcane way that private special interest corrupt the regulatory process.

I’ve witnessed it multiple times during my career at DEP and I even once blew the whistle on exactly the same corruption by Gov. McGreevey’s DEP Commissioner Brad Campbell. (PEER Press Release, 7/5/05)

Trenton — The head of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
gave a prominent developer an advance look at streams that would be designated for protection months before the list was published for public comment, according to emails released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The state agency subsequently dropped the stream protection plans that would have interfered with the developer’s projects.

In an October 28, 2002 email to DEP Commissioner Bradley Campbell, Joe Riggs,
President of K. Hovnanian, a major New Jersey developer, opposed additional
protections for several high quality streams and rivers, including the Peckman
River, Lopatcong Creek, Pequannock River, Mill Brook and South Branch of the
Raritan River. The company objected to placing these stream buffer lands off
limits to building because that would preclude sewage treatment plant expansions
needed to serve its projects. […]

“These documents reveal troubling behind-the-scenes political influence that ultimately undermined protections for high quality New Jersey trout streams and rivers,” commented New Jersey PEER Director Bill Wolfe, a former DEP official.

Hit the link above to read all the documents, including the smoking gun emails.

Here is my reply email to Commissioner Campbell on Mr. Riggs’ requests.

I filed an ethics complaint as well.

The complaint ultimately was dismissed by the State Ethics Commission: (PEER Press Release 11/5/05)

Trenton — The Executive Commission on Ethical Standards has dismissed without explanation a complaint that New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Bradley Campbell improperly gave confidential deliberative regulatory information to developer Joe Riggs, President of K. Hovnanian. As a consequence, there will be no sanction against Campbell for providing developers extremely valuable inside information about agency plans well before they were made public.

The request for ethics review was filed on July 5, 2005 by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) concerning politically connected developers getting the inside track on stream classification decisions worth millions of dollars.

The legislature should amend laws to explicitly prohibit these systematic corrupt practices and expand transparency.

DEP Regulatory Role In Land Use Permits And Site Remediation Approvals

Did Norcross Associates Get Sweetheart Deals Or Special Treatment?

Source: NJ AG Norcross indictment – map of properties involved

Piñata Part 1

I’m just now reading NJ Attorney General Platkin’s June 13, 2024 Indictment of south Jersey political boss George Norcross et al (including the former Mayor of Camden).

I noted that some of the Camden Waterfront development projects mentioned in the Indictment involve a regulatory role by the NJ Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in issuing various Land Use permits, Site Remediation, and other water related approvals.

Based on my first hand experience at DEP, where I’ve witnessed political pressures on DEP for favorable treatment in issuing various regulatory approvals, I thought it important to understand DEP’s role in this scandal.

So, I just submitted the following Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request to DEP.

I may do this for other projects or parcels in the indictment. Maybe intrepid investigative reporters out there can use this as a model and submit their own OPRA requests. It should be interesting:

“According to the NJ Attorney General’s 6/13/24 indictment of George Norcross et al: (hereafter notes are mine):

“In 2002, Dranoff properties (hereafter DPI) began the process of renovating and remediating the Victor Lofts on the Camden Waterfront (hereafter “subject development”). The renovation was completed in 2003.”

Based on those facts, I request the following public documents for the period 2001 – 2004:

1) Communications between DPI and NJ DEP, the NJ DEP Commissioner, the NJ DEP Assistant Commissioners for Land Use and Site Remediation, and DEP staff in Land Use and Site Remediation, including letters, emails, meeting records (agendas, meeting notes, participants, sign in sheets, etc), phone call logs, land use and site remediation permit pre-application meetings, and document transmittal letters (e.g. cover letters for permit applications, remediation documents, or other project coordination documents).

2) Land Use permit applications submitted by DPI on the subject development and DEP permit administrative completeness, technical deficiency and technical completeness letters, and DEP permit approval letters for the subject development.

3) Site remediation documents submitted by DPI on the subject development and DEP technical review and approval letters for the subject development.

4) DEP site inspection documents for the subject development site.

5) DEP enforcement documents issued to DPI for the subject site and to prior owners of the subject site.

We’ll keep you posted on what we find out.

DEP Mismanagement Exposed By Expanding Bird Flu Risks

DEP Spun The Science, Downplayed Risks, And Misled The Public

Back in August of 2022, we blasted the Murphy DEP for allowing dead vultures to rot in the woods along a portion of the Sussex Branch Trail in Lafayette, NJ, warning that such practices could lead to an epidemic of bird flu.

Longtime NJ reporter Bob Hennelly wrote:

The United States Department of Agriculture had confirmed that over 100 black vultures had died in that portion of the trail from Avian Influeneza (bird flu).

“New Jersey DEP Fish and Wildlife have left the dead birds to decompose on site due to rough terrain causing accessibility issues and a lack of personnel in the State certified to handle infected birds,” the notice said. “Improper handling can lead to further spread of disease.”

The agency went on the reassure the public that “the risk of avian influenza being transmitted to people is extremely low” and that the “New Jersey Department of Agriculture and NJ DEP Fish and Wildlife are continuing monitoring the situation.” …

Bill Wolfe, a former DEP official and whistleblower, said the choice to let the contaminated vultures rot in the wild has roots in what has been a bi-partisan drive going back to the Gov. Florio administration to try and make the DEP more self-sustaining off of the revenues it can raise through permitting and promoting commercial activities.

“DEP Fish and Wildlife has plenty of staff available to promote hunting and logging of State lands (wildlife management areas) but not enough to dispose of dead birds? Are you kidding me?,” Wolfe said. “This is just another example of how DEP budget cuts, misplaced priorities driven by revenue generating activities like hunting and fishing, and lack of leadership at the top directly threaten public health and healthy ecosystems.”

That DEP “reassurance” about health risks was absolute bullshit at the time and we called it out, see:

• Dead Vultures In The Woods Of Jersey Reveal Dark Secrets

Our criticisms and warnings were ignored by DEP, NJ media and legislators.

Unfortunately, our warnings and criticisms of DEP again were vindicated. Today’s NY Times:

• A Bird-Flu Pandemic in People? Here’s What It Might Look Like

The bird flu outbreak in dairy cattle has so far spilled over to just three farmworkers in the United States, as far as public health authorities know. All of them have had mostly mild symptoms.

But that does not guarantee that the virus, called H5N1, will remain benign if it begins to spread among people. Accumulating evidence from the animal world and data from other parts of the globe, in fact, suggest the opposite.

In a supporting story reviewing some of that “accumulating evidence” about how the bird flu is spreading, today’s NY Times reports that the DEP assurances were false:

“As we get more dead, wild birds on the landscape, if we get more dead poultry on the landscape, these carnivores that may get into them and ingest them, even after they’re dead, are getting just a massive dose of virus,” said Dr. Justin Brown, a wildlife veterinarian at Penn State.

Repeat – “dead, wild birds on the landscape,” create “just a massive dose of virus.”

When will NJ media and environmental groups begin to hold DEP accountable to science and facts, instead of press release spin?

We’re not holding our breath.