There is a flurry of activity on roads in the 2nd Ward. Here are the highlights:
1. Watchung Ave between 7th St and Hillside is being paved. Curb work continues this week. Concrete driveway aprons will be installed beginning later this week or next week. Paving is expected to happen the last week of November or the first week of December.
2. Old and missing street signs are being replaced in the Netherwood neighborhood today and tomorrow.
3. The intersection of 7th St and Belividere Ave. will have crosswalks painted tomorrow or Friday, weather permitting. Pedestrian crossing signs will be added for west bound traffic along 7th St east of the intersection. This busy intersection has seen many accidents and has a lot of pedestrian traffic going to and from the Netherwood train station.
Thanks go to the Public Works employees and to the local advocates for speaking out on behalf of their neighbors for these improvements. More to follow.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
CFO update
I spoke last Friday with the Deputy Director of Local Govt Services, a division of NJ Department of Community Affairs. He said Plainfield will be hearing from DCA imminently with a resolution to our CFO problem. He would not disclose what the answer would be because his letter was sitting on the Commissioners desk for approval.
I am not sure if this is good news or not. It would be a real let down if DCA does not come to the aid of Plainfield on this matter. What is DCA for if not to assist local governments in need. I will hope for a temporary resolution to our problem as well as a permanent one.
Thanks must go to Maria Pellum who contacted DCA herself to urge them to action. I asked the state official if he could acknowledge any communications from Plainfield citizens and he said he had heard from a number of people.
I am not sure if this is good news or not. It would be a real let down if DCA does not come to the aid of Plainfield on this matter. What is DCA for if not to assist local governments in need. I will hope for a temporary resolution to our problem as well as a permanent one.
Thanks must go to Maria Pellum who contacted DCA herself to urge them to action. I asked the state official if he could acknowledge any communications from Plainfield citizens and he said he had heard from a number of people.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Attending the NJ League of Municipalities Convention
I applaud Councilman Rashid Burney for his decision not to attend the League Convention in November. It is not a good use of taxpayers money for an outgoing elected official to spend city dollars in such a way. This should hold true for the Board of Education, the PMUA and the Housing Authority, each of which sends elected and appointed people to conventions on the taxpayers dime. When I was on the Board of Education, I argued for the same approach to be made policy but did so in vain. It is on the to do list of the City Council's Finance Committee. The only thing one official can do for certain is to set the good example as Burney does.
I want to make sure there is not a misperception on the cost of the League of Municipalities Convention. Rashid mentions saving $1500. The cost for Council members to attend is more like $400. That assumes the costs are limited to registration ($60), two nights for the hotel (at $140 per night) plus gas and tolls. I do not believe that Plainfield Council members are requesting reimbursements for food and drink. There was one unfortunate exception in the past but that person is no longer on the Council. And when that came to the attention of the Council, we refused to make the reimbursement.
As for getting the most from the convention, Rashid makes good points. I only need to add that every sitting Council member I have attended the League convention with has been an active attendee at sessions and networking events. I agree with Rashid that the convention sessions are very helpful.
I plan to attend for one day as I did last year. Last year I did not stay overnight. This year I am still undecided but if I do, it will be for one night only. I promise to share through my blog what I learn from the 2010 convention and hope to implement.
I want to make sure there is not a misperception on the cost of the League of Municipalities Convention. Rashid mentions saving $1500. The cost for Council members to attend is more like $400. That assumes the costs are limited to registration ($60), two nights for the hotel (at $140 per night) plus gas and tolls. I do not believe that Plainfield Council members are requesting reimbursements for food and drink. There was one unfortunate exception in the past but that person is no longer on the Council. And when that came to the attention of the Council, we refused to make the reimbursement.
As for getting the most from the convention, Rashid makes good points. I only need to add that every sitting Council member I have attended the League convention with has been an active attendee at sessions and networking events. I agree with Rashid that the convention sessions are very helpful.
I plan to attend for one day as I did last year. Last year I did not stay overnight. This year I am still undecided but if I do, it will be for one night only. I promise to share through my blog what I learn from the 2010 convention and hope to implement.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Shot spotter technology: two things to consider, two things to avoid
Plainfield is poised to purchase technology that will enable the police to instantly locate gunshots in our city. The upfront cost is $1 million to cover an area stretching completely across the city from east to west. The ongoing cost will be $100,000 per year for the service contract. Proponents say we will get more convictions and the shot spotter program will be a deterrent to crime. Other cities are getting onboard and the company that sells the shot spotter program claims that it reduces crime.
Public safety is a huge concern in Plainfield and nowhere more than in some west side neighborhoods. Citizens deserve to be safe and to feel safe so this technology needs serious consideration. The Council has already approved the financing for it on first reading. Second reading will likely be in October.
I am in favor of Plainfield becoming a shot spotter city. My problem is the approach we are taking. Two things we must consider:
1. We are taking a buy first, plan later approach. Technology in and of itself will not solve our crime problems any more than a computer on a desk at the One Stop Career Center will get someone a job. We need a comprehensive strategy for crime. It needs to include technology, adequate police manpower, best practices in rapid response, recreation programs for youth and jobs programs for young adults. If we are going to spend $100,000 a year on a technology contract, we need to ask if some of that money could instead help balance our strategy by hiring mentors to work with kids evenings and weekends. It appears to me that we are rushing into this because no-one wants to appear to be against crime fighting. The reality is that fighting crime does not address the core problems facing our youth and we need to deal with them and fight crime at the same time.
2. Big problem, limited resources. Our administration wants to spend taxpayer dollars without having really looked for the grants that are out there and being used by other towns. When faced with an expensive gamble that shows promise, a sensible thing to do is ease into it. I am not saying study it to death. I mean install shot spotter in a smaller section of town. Starting with the west side makes sense because our crime statistics tell us we should concentrate there. We can see how it works and decide later if the east side of town would benefit from shot spotter. Hopefully we will have made some progress on getting grant money. Or perhaps we would decide to concentrate more on the core problems through recreation and jobs programs for kids in the sections of town where gang activity is prevalent.
There are many unanswered questions. What if silencers are installed on handguns? What if a gang member fires shots in the eastend to divert the police from a planned gun confrontation in the westend? We need answers and comprehensive strategies. Lets move on this but not rush into an emotional decision that may or may not be the best way to use Plainfield's limited resources.
Two things we need to avoid as debate on this initiative continues:
1. I don't believe Council members are polarized on this issue as New versus Regular Democrats. But some members of the public will want to pressure Council members by accusing them of being "political". I heard that during the public comments at the last meeting. I worry that elected officials may be pressured to rush into this to avoid the accusation of not caring about citizens safety. That is nonsense.
2. The perception that city resources are unfairly distributed between the 4th ward versus 2nd ward also came up at the last Council meeting. The comment referred to people on the hill. I live on "the hill" and here is a news flash: there are gunshots on the hill. Another news flash in case you think "the hill" is synonymous with white people: it is the most ethnically and racially diverse neighborhood in Plainfield. By far. And people "on the hill" care about what happens in other parts of town. We understand that for Plainfield to thrive, the whole town needs to be safe and secure.
I hope we can move on the shot spotter proposal but not before elected officials look at this with open eyes and rational minds.
Public safety is a huge concern in Plainfield and nowhere more than in some west side neighborhoods. Citizens deserve to be safe and to feel safe so this technology needs serious consideration. The Council has already approved the financing for it on first reading. Second reading will likely be in October.
I am in favor of Plainfield becoming a shot spotter city. My problem is the approach we are taking. Two things we must consider:
1. We are taking a buy first, plan later approach. Technology in and of itself will not solve our crime problems any more than a computer on a desk at the One Stop Career Center will get someone a job. We need a comprehensive strategy for crime. It needs to include technology, adequate police manpower, best practices in rapid response, recreation programs for youth and jobs programs for young adults. If we are going to spend $100,000 a year on a technology contract, we need to ask if some of that money could instead help balance our strategy by hiring mentors to work with kids evenings and weekends. It appears to me that we are rushing into this because no-one wants to appear to be against crime fighting. The reality is that fighting crime does not address the core problems facing our youth and we need to deal with them and fight crime at the same time.
2. Big problem, limited resources. Our administration wants to spend taxpayer dollars without having really looked for the grants that are out there and being used by other towns. When faced with an expensive gamble that shows promise, a sensible thing to do is ease into it. I am not saying study it to death. I mean install shot spotter in a smaller section of town. Starting with the west side makes sense because our crime statistics tell us we should concentrate there. We can see how it works and decide later if the east side of town would benefit from shot spotter. Hopefully we will have made some progress on getting grant money. Or perhaps we would decide to concentrate more on the core problems through recreation and jobs programs for kids in the sections of town where gang activity is prevalent.
There are many unanswered questions. What if silencers are installed on handguns? What if a gang member fires shots in the eastend to divert the police from a planned gun confrontation in the westend? We need answers and comprehensive strategies. Lets move on this but not rush into an emotional decision that may or may not be the best way to use Plainfield's limited resources.
Two things we need to avoid as debate on this initiative continues:
1. I don't believe Council members are polarized on this issue as New versus Regular Democrats. But some members of the public will want to pressure Council members by accusing them of being "political". I heard that during the public comments at the last meeting. I worry that elected officials may be pressured to rush into this to avoid the accusation of not caring about citizens safety. That is nonsense.
2. The perception that city resources are unfairly distributed between the 4th ward versus 2nd ward also came up at the last Council meeting. The comment referred to people on the hill. I live on "the hill" and here is a news flash: there are gunshots on the hill. Another news flash in case you think "the hill" is synonymous with white people: it is the most ethnically and racially diverse neighborhood in Plainfield. By far. And people "on the hill" care about what happens in other parts of town. We understand that for Plainfield to thrive, the whole town needs to be safe and secure.
I hope we can move on the shot spotter proposal but not before elected officials look at this with open eyes and rational minds.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Dear Assemblyman Green – Cease and Desist in Your Actions to Smear a Non Profit Agency that Helps People in Need.
In light of the fact that Assemblyman Green has inexplicably brought my employer, Bridgeway, and its internal personnel transactions into the public arena, my Board of Trustees has asked me to respond on behalf of Bridgeway.
It is unfortunate the Assemblyman’s political agenda would lead him to attack a leading organization that champions the rights of disadvantaged people to lead lives worth living. Every person served by Bridgeway has a diagnosis of a serious mental illness. These individuals deserve the same respect and opportunities as everyone. Additionally, most of Bridgeway’s clientele are poor with a high percentage of people representing minority groups.
Bridgeway is dedicated to the rights and equal opportunities of minorities, advocating to eliminate disparities based on disability, gender and sexual preference as well as race. Bridgeway’s services continue to be cited as “exemplary” by both the State of NJ and the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities, the international agency that accredits mental health providers. The NJ Association of Mental Health Agencies named us as the Mental Health Provider of the Year in 2007. To maintain those standards, Bridgeway strives to recruit and retain the best employees in the field and ones who can relate to persons served because they look and speak like them.
It is true that 3 people, myself included, who helped build Bridgeway over many years to what it is today, are not members of minority groups. But we at Bridgeway are proud of the fact that our employees truly represent the communities we serve. Our most recent Affirmative Action Report (AAR) shows that of 167 full time employees, 54 were African American, 25 were Hispanic and 10 were Asian. So the minority employees totaled 89 or 54% of all Bridgeway employees. The total number of promotions for the most recent reporting period shows that of 4 promotions, 1 was African American and 2 were Hispanic. None of the most recent promotion information is contained on the AAR. Of the last 5 promotions, one (Assistant Director) was African American, one (Quality Improvement Director) was Asian. Four of the five were females. They bring the total number of current minority employees who are managers and supervisors to 13, of which 6 are African Americans. We are proud of the efforts made to recruit and promote minority employees but we will continue to push for more minority employees to climb the career ladder at Bridgeway.
Bridgeway does not use a civil service system approach to promoting staff. Our system is merit based with seniority being an additional factor. This ensures that Bridgeway’s service recipients, who have been discriminated against and have frequently been denied opportunities, receive the very best in services.
It is unfortunate the Assemblyman’s political agenda would lead him to attack a leading organization that champions the rights of disadvantaged people to lead lives worth living. Every person served by Bridgeway has a diagnosis of a serious mental illness. These individuals deserve the same respect and opportunities as everyone. Additionally, most of Bridgeway’s clientele are poor with a high percentage of people representing minority groups.
Bridgeway is dedicated to the rights and equal opportunities of minorities, advocating to eliminate disparities based on disability, gender and sexual preference as well as race. Bridgeway’s services continue to be cited as “exemplary” by both the State of NJ and the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities, the international agency that accredits mental health providers. The NJ Association of Mental Health Agencies named us as the Mental Health Provider of the Year in 2007. To maintain those standards, Bridgeway strives to recruit and retain the best employees in the field and ones who can relate to persons served because they look and speak like them.
It is true that 3 people, myself included, who helped build Bridgeway over many years to what it is today, are not members of minority groups. But we at Bridgeway are proud of the fact that our employees truly represent the communities we serve. Our most recent Affirmative Action Report (AAR) shows that of 167 full time employees, 54 were African American, 25 were Hispanic and 10 were Asian. So the minority employees totaled 89 or 54% of all Bridgeway employees. The total number of promotions for the most recent reporting period shows that of 4 promotions, 1 was African American and 2 were Hispanic. None of the most recent promotion information is contained on the AAR. Of the last 5 promotions, one (Assistant Director) was African American, one (Quality Improvement Director) was Asian. Four of the five were females. They bring the total number of current minority employees who are managers and supervisors to 13, of which 6 are African Americans. We are proud of the efforts made to recruit and promote minority employees but we will continue to push for more minority employees to climb the career ladder at Bridgeway.
Bridgeway does not use a civil service system approach to promoting staff. Our system is merit based with seniority being an additional factor. This ensures that Bridgeway’s service recipients, who have been discriminated against and have frequently been denied opportunities, receive the very best in services.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
When Two Worlds Collide
Fans of Jerry Seinfeld may remember the Seinfeld television episode when George tried and failed to keep his two worlds separate. Like George, I try to keep my two worlds apart. In my case, it is my elected official life in Plainfield and and professional life as Executive Director of Bridgeway Rehabilitation Services, Inc. A recent blog post by Assemblyman Jerry Green distorted my track record as a mental health professional and that of my employer, Bridgeway. To my Plainfield constituents - I wish to set the record straight.
Bridgeway Rehabilitation Services is a not for profit psychiatric rehabilitation service organization. We serve adults who have been diagnosed with serious mental illnesses, people whose psychiatric illnesses have been exacerbated by poverty and co-occurring substance abuse, chronic medical conditions and homelessness. Most of the people Bridgeway serves have spent time in state and local psychiatric in-patient units. State psychiatric hospitals are not humane environments and cost the taxpayer $180,000 per patient per year.
Bridgeway offers recovery, a new way of viewing and coping with serious mental illnesses. We offer a wrap around service that supports people to not only manage their symptoms and take their medications but to strive for a life worth living. That means working, going to school, having your own apartment and a circle of support comprised of family and friends - what everybody wants.
Bridgeway is part of a state-wide network of service providers who work with the state to help institutionalized people re-integrate into the community. Years ago it was believed that mental illness was a life sentence to be spent in an institution like Greystone Park or Trenton State Psychiatric Hospital. As treatment improved, it was believed that people could live in the community but in a group home or boarding house like the Park Hotel. Group homes cost the taxpayer $65,000 per year per resident and up. Today we've taken a big step further because the research clearly demonstrates that most people with serious mental illnesses can live independently with flexible supports. This approach, called supportive housing, is what Bridgeway specializes in.
Supportive housing costs the taxpayers $10,000 to $30,000 per year per person, depending on the complexity of the needs of the person served. Supportive housing as done by Bridgeway, is scattered site. That means each person has his/her own apartment and they are not clustered or in a congregate housing arrangement. Unlike the Park Hotel or a group home, that is true community integration. Bridgeway serves 1500 people each year, spanning 8 counties in central and northern New Jersey. Over 90% are in supportive housing. Some live with their families and a few live in places like the Park Hotel. We offer them the opportunity to move out into a more independent living arrangement. It's their choice.
Bridgeway believes choice is critical for service recipients and it is maximized by helping people find apartments in the existing rental market. That means properties are not taken off the tax rolls. The only exception Bridgeway made was when we purchased 4 two bedroom condomiums in Union County and 1 three bedroom house in Hunterdon County for use by our service recipients. To maximize choice, we did not purchase in the two urban centers, Elizabeth and Plainfield, because we felt that more living opportunities should be created in suburban areas. And those condo properties were taken off the tax rolls (Elizabeth and Plainfield were clearly doing more than their share to assist people with disabilities).
Supportive housing works because Bridgeway offers multi-disciplinary service teams that are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week to come out for home visits. One of these teams is based in Plainfield and rents office space on East Front Street. Most Plainfield residents are unaware of this because our community integration approach is working.
Bridgeway was recognized as mental health agency of the year in 2007 by our trade association, NJ Association of Mental Health Agencies, representing over 160 organizations. I was recognized as psychiatric rehabilitation agency director of the year in 2008 by the U.S. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Association.
Although Bridgeway is prominent in its field, Bridgeway and its service recipients are virtually invisible in the community and that is a good thing, considering the stigma that comes with mental illness. People with mental illnesses deserve the opportunity to become productive members of our communities and do not deserve to be stigmatized, especially by elected officials with political agendas.
Bridgeway Rehabilitation Services is a not for profit psychiatric rehabilitation service organization. We serve adults who have been diagnosed with serious mental illnesses, people whose psychiatric illnesses have been exacerbated by poverty and co-occurring substance abuse, chronic medical conditions and homelessness. Most of the people Bridgeway serves have spent time in state and local psychiatric in-patient units. State psychiatric hospitals are not humane environments and cost the taxpayer $180,000 per patient per year.
Bridgeway offers recovery, a new way of viewing and coping with serious mental illnesses. We offer a wrap around service that supports people to not only manage their symptoms and take their medications but to strive for a life worth living. That means working, going to school, having your own apartment and a circle of support comprised of family and friends - what everybody wants.
Bridgeway is part of a state-wide network of service providers who work with the state to help institutionalized people re-integrate into the community. Years ago it was believed that mental illness was a life sentence to be spent in an institution like Greystone Park or Trenton State Psychiatric Hospital. As treatment improved, it was believed that people could live in the community but in a group home or boarding house like the Park Hotel. Group homes cost the taxpayer $65,000 per year per resident and up. Today we've taken a big step further because the research clearly demonstrates that most people with serious mental illnesses can live independently with flexible supports. This approach, called supportive housing, is what Bridgeway specializes in.
Supportive housing costs the taxpayers $10,000 to $30,000 per year per person, depending on the complexity of the needs of the person served. Supportive housing as done by Bridgeway, is scattered site. That means each person has his/her own apartment and they are not clustered or in a congregate housing arrangement. Unlike the Park Hotel or a group home, that is true community integration. Bridgeway serves 1500 people each year, spanning 8 counties in central and northern New Jersey. Over 90% are in supportive housing. Some live with their families and a few live in places like the Park Hotel. We offer them the opportunity to move out into a more independent living arrangement. It's their choice.
Bridgeway believes choice is critical for service recipients and it is maximized by helping people find apartments in the existing rental market. That means properties are not taken off the tax rolls. The only exception Bridgeway made was when we purchased 4 two bedroom condomiums in Union County and 1 three bedroom house in Hunterdon County for use by our service recipients. To maximize choice, we did not purchase in the two urban centers, Elizabeth and Plainfield, because we felt that more living opportunities should be created in suburban areas. And those condo properties were taken off the tax rolls (Elizabeth and Plainfield were clearly doing more than their share to assist people with disabilities).
Supportive housing works because Bridgeway offers multi-disciplinary service teams that are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week to come out for home visits. One of these teams is based in Plainfield and rents office space on East Front Street. Most Plainfield residents are unaware of this because our community integration approach is working.
Bridgeway was recognized as mental health agency of the year in 2007 by our trade association, NJ Association of Mental Health Agencies, representing over 160 organizations. I was recognized as psychiatric rehabilitation agency director of the year in 2008 by the U.S. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Association.
Although Bridgeway is prominent in its field, Bridgeway and its service recipients are virtually invisible in the community and that is a good thing, considering the stigma that comes with mental illness. People with mental illnesses deserve the opportunity to become productive members of our communities and do not deserve to be stigmatized, especially by elected officials with political agendas.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Response to Assemblyman Green
Thank you Assemblyman Green for recognizing the power I have to influence the course of events in Plainfield. For the record, however, the Park Hotel was converted into a boarding home in 1970. I was a college sophomore in Buffalo, NY at the time.
As for group homes, I am guessing that you forgot the discussion we had a few years ago about the Park Hotel and group homes. I will refresh your memory. You came to me with a plan to close the Park Hotel. I told you that plans for the 170 residents would have to be included so they weren't just put out on the street. I explained that there are more humane solutions than warehousing people in large boarding homes. I mentioned supportive housing as a solution and that I work for a non profit organization that subscribes to the supportive housing model. You may recall that I am the co-founder of the New Jersey Supportive Housing Association and I invited you to speak at one of our meetings in Trenton. You did so.
Boarding homes and group homes are the traditional approach to housing for people in need. In fact, most special needs populations are capable of living independently if they are offered services and supports by human service professionals who visit them in their apartments. This is supportive housing - what I do for a living.
Supportive housing has the advantage of helping people with special needs integrate into the community. They are not in congregate housing which calls attention to them. They are living just as you or I do. Supportive housing as done by the non profit I work for does not take properties off the tax rolls. We do it as market rate rentals. Assemblyman Green - your claim about a bank being converted into a group home has nothing to do with the organization or work I am associated with. In fact I don't even know what property you are referring to. I hope this is not an example of throwing out misleading information and hoping some of it sticks.
It is sad that you are attacking me with false accusations. Recently you offered to give me the party endorsement in next Junes City Council primary election. Suddenly you have changed your mind? Would that have to do with my criticisms of your unethical campaign accusations of your political opponents?
As for group homes, I am guessing that you forgot the discussion we had a few years ago about the Park Hotel and group homes. I will refresh your memory. You came to me with a plan to close the Park Hotel. I told you that plans for the 170 residents would have to be included so they weren't just put out on the street. I explained that there are more humane solutions than warehousing people in large boarding homes. I mentioned supportive housing as a solution and that I work for a non profit organization that subscribes to the supportive housing model. You may recall that I am the co-founder of the New Jersey Supportive Housing Association and I invited you to speak at one of our meetings in Trenton. You did so.
Boarding homes and group homes are the traditional approach to housing for people in need. In fact, most special needs populations are capable of living independently if they are offered services and supports by human service professionals who visit them in their apartments. This is supportive housing - what I do for a living.
Supportive housing has the advantage of helping people with special needs integrate into the community. They are not in congregate housing which calls attention to them. They are living just as you or I do. Supportive housing as done by the non profit I work for does not take properties off the tax rolls. We do it as market rate rentals. Assemblyman Green - your claim about a bank being converted into a group home has nothing to do with the organization or work I am associated with. In fact I don't even know what property you are referring to. I hope this is not an example of throwing out misleading information and hoping some of it sticks.
It is sad that you are attacking me with false accusations. Recently you offered to give me the party endorsement in next Junes City Council primary election. Suddenly you have changed your mind? Would that have to do with my criticisms of your unethical campaign accusations of your political opponents?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
