In recent weeks, there has been much discussion in the community about Saving the Baronet Theater from being condemned by eminent domain.
The current owner of the Baronet Theater, as almost all of you know, is Mr. Pat Fasano. In the 2004 Municipal Election, Mr. Fasano contributed $583 in support of my candidacy. In light of this, when the ordinance to take the Baronet by eminent domain was introduced at the July 6th City Council meeting, I recused myself from voting on the issue.
Tonight there will be a public hearing and most likely a vote on whether or not the City Council will take the Baronet from Mr. Fasano by eminent domain.
After careful consideration and conversations with our legal counsel, two additional attorneys, and a broad cross section of my constituents, I have made the decision that I will NOT be recusing myself from discussion and the potential vote on this matter at tonight’s City Council meeting.
I have made my positions on eminent domain and the preservation of our historical assets crystal clear both before and after the election. I am quite comfortable and confident that the modest contribution made by Mr. Fasano to my campaign will in no way cloud my judgment, influence my decision or compromise my ethics on this matter. Moreover, neither I, nor any members of my immediate family or any business organizations in which I have an interest have a direct or indirect financial or personal involvement that might reasonably be expected to impair my objectivity or independence of judgment. Regardless of who owned the Baronet Theater, I would vote in the same way.
Having said this, why do I feel we should SAVE THE BARONET?
First, it is a historical asset with a rich architectural and programmatic history. Second, the current owners have made the necessary renovations and are now ready to open the venue thus creating another destination location for people to visit in Asbury Park. Third, they plan to show movies on Friday through Sunday for $2 per ticket. Given the economic demographics in our city, this will make a night at the movies affordable for our working families. Fourth, they are willing to allow various community groups use the facility for programming. Finally, I have not seen, nor heard of any concrete plans that Asbury Partners has for this particular block and therefore I do not feel that there is any pressing need for this property to be taken at this time.
Peace, JWK
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Statement on the Market Street Mission
In recent weeks, there has been much discussion in the community about the Market Street Mission coming to Asbury Park. There are also seems to be misconceptions about my position on this issue.
History of the issue
Some time ago, Market Street Mission, d/b/a Jersey Shore Rescue Mission ("the applicant") made application to the City to conduct an operation involving multiple uses at the property located at 701 Memorial Drive within the City. The Zoning Board considered this matter at 6 public hearings, held between April of 2005 and November of 2005. These hearings were all publicly noticed, and various members of the public participated at each meeting. On November 29, 2005, the Zoning Board voted to deny the application. This denial was memorialized by a resolution that was adopted on Jan. 10, 2006. Following the Zoning Board's denial, the applicant filed a lawsuit known as an "Action in Lieu of Prerogative Writs" in Superior Court, Law Division, in Freehold. This is the typical way to challenge any action taken by a governmental entity.
On February 28, 2006, the Court ruled that the Zoning Board's denial of the application was "arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable," and not supported by the record before the Board. The Court found that the Zoning Board had failed to address the application properly under the "inherently beneficial use" standard prescribed under the law, which is applicable in land use matters when dealing with applications for hospitals and similar uses that are deemed to be inherently beneficial to the public good.
Ultimately, the Court entered an Order reversing the Board's denial, and sent the matter back to the Zoning Board for further review utilizing the correct "inherently beneficial use" standard. The Zoning Board was ordered to re-evaluate the matter within 30 days of the Court's decision (or within 30 days of February 28, 2006).
Following the Court's action, the Zoning Board scheduled an additional public hearing, held on March 14, 2006, to re-consider the application in light of the Court's findings. That hearing took place as scheduled, and was publicly noticed. On that date, the Board re-considered the application under the "inherently beneficial use" standard, as required by the Court's ruling, and voted that evening to reverse its prior decision, and to grant all variances and other approvals requested. This decision was memorialized by Resolution dated March 28, 2006.
In response to the action taken by the Zoning Board, a citizen’s group, “Stand Up for Asbury,” has filed a lawsuit in an attempt to prevent the Market Street Mission from coming to Asbury Park and they have publicly requested that the governing body join this lawsuit.
Amicus Brief
At tonight’s City Council meeting, the governing body most likely will be voting on a resolution to file an amicus (friend of the court) brief in support of the lawsuit that has been filed by members of “Stand Up for Asbury.” I will be voting NO on this resolution, and I’d like to tell you why. But first, I’d like to clear up some misinformation.
In their literature, the group “Stand Up For Asbury” wrongly states that, “There are 7 other shelters in Asbury Park that have overnight sleeping quarters for the homeless.” And the Coaster printed that information in their July 13th edition without any fact-checking, I later learned. There are not 7 shelters in Asbury Park. There are currently NO shelters in Asbury Park that offer overnight sleeping quarters for the homeless. There are seven agencies that offer services for the homeless and transitional residential housing for specific populations (abused women, HIV/AIDS, etc.) but there is no agency currently operating in Asbury Park that would meet the loosest definition of a homeless shelter.
There are three main reasons why I will vote NO on the resolution to file an amicus brief.
First, I believe that filing this amicus brief is a waste of taxpayer money. I believe it is a waste of money because I am fairly confident that the lawsuit will not be successful and that my colleagues may be pursuing this action for purely political reasons.
I believe the amicus brief is a waste of taxpayer money because our lawyers will have to take the time to research the issue, draft the amicus brief and file it on our behalf – all to the tune of $110 per hour over roughly 30-40 hours.
Second, I will be voting NO on this resolution tonight because, as a member of the Affordable Housing Subcommittee, I know that we do indeed have a homeless problem in Asbury Park which exists right now and needs to be addressed. That said, I also agree that there are serious concerns with certain Market Street Mission policies and with bringing in more people to Asbury Park who are not current or former residents that will need social services. I did not seek out the Market Street Mission or vote to have them come to Asbury Park, but I will engage them on the issues of concern that I share with many of you.
I will engage the Market Street Mission regarding their troubling policies on background checks, their exclusion of gay clients and their plans for clients during the day and when clients are discharged from the Mission. I had hoped to have done this prior to tonight’s vote, but the Management of the Mission has been advised not to meet with any members of the governing body or engage in any discussion whatsoever until the litigation is resolved. In light of this, I have already begun to seek information from other sources. To gain a better understanding of how good of a “neighbor” the Market Street Mission has been in its hometown of Morristown, I have reached out to the Mayor of Morristown, the Chief of Police of Morristown, and the Director of Human Services. To date, I am still waiting to hear from the Mayor, but from those whom I have spoken with, I have not received any information that the Market Street Mission’s operation in Morristown has been significantly problematic.
I will also engage the County and State Offices of Human Services and Social Services and request a clear plan of action that regionalizes the responsibility for helping the homeless. The first phase of this engagement would be to get us the resources we need to adequately service the needs in our community. The second phase would be to create a countywide and/or statewide plan to share the responsibilities, financial and otherwise, to end homelessness in NJ. In my research, I have found a plan that was put forth by the New Jersey State Policy Academy Team to do just this. Their “Preliminary Action Plan to End Homelessness in New Jersey” can be found at:
http://www.hrsa.gov/homeless/state_pages/pa4/ap/nj_ap.htm
Just today I had a conversation with Deborah De Santis, the Director of the Corporation for Supportive Housing and one of the co-chairs of the Policy Academy Team that authored the plan. The discussion was very enlightening and I will be meeting with her and the members of the CEAS Committee (Comprehensive Emergency Assistance System) this coming week to begin to address homeless issues specific to Asbury Park.
Finally, I will be voting NO on this resolution tonight because for me this is an issue of conscience and a moral decision. Would it be easier for me to just sign on to this brief and remain fairly silent on the issue, leading people to believe I’m 100% with them– yes. Would signing the brief be the politically expedient thing to do– yes. But I believe it is the wrong thing to do for the wrong reasons.
I hope that the information I have provided and clarifying my position has been helpful and I appreciate any feedback from constituents that you feel may be useful.
Peace, JWK
History of the issue
Some time ago, Market Street Mission, d/b/a Jersey Shore Rescue Mission ("the applicant") made application to the City to conduct an operation involving multiple uses at the property located at 701 Memorial Drive within the City. The Zoning Board considered this matter at 6 public hearings, held between April of 2005 and November of 2005. These hearings were all publicly noticed, and various members of the public participated at each meeting. On November 29, 2005, the Zoning Board voted to deny the application. This denial was memorialized by a resolution that was adopted on Jan. 10, 2006. Following the Zoning Board's denial, the applicant filed a lawsuit known as an "Action in Lieu of Prerogative Writs" in Superior Court, Law Division, in Freehold. This is the typical way to challenge any action taken by a governmental entity.
On February 28, 2006, the Court ruled that the Zoning Board's denial of the application was "arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable," and not supported by the record before the Board. The Court found that the Zoning Board had failed to address the application properly under the "inherently beneficial use" standard prescribed under the law, which is applicable in land use matters when dealing with applications for hospitals and similar uses that are deemed to be inherently beneficial to the public good.
Ultimately, the Court entered an Order reversing the Board's denial, and sent the matter back to the Zoning Board for further review utilizing the correct "inherently beneficial use" standard. The Zoning Board was ordered to re-evaluate the matter within 30 days of the Court's decision (or within 30 days of February 28, 2006).
Following the Court's action, the Zoning Board scheduled an additional public hearing, held on March 14, 2006, to re-consider the application in light of the Court's findings. That hearing took place as scheduled, and was publicly noticed. On that date, the Board re-considered the application under the "inherently beneficial use" standard, as required by the Court's ruling, and voted that evening to reverse its prior decision, and to grant all variances and other approvals requested. This decision was memorialized by Resolution dated March 28, 2006.
In response to the action taken by the Zoning Board, a citizen’s group, “Stand Up for Asbury,” has filed a lawsuit in an attempt to prevent the Market Street Mission from coming to Asbury Park and they have publicly requested that the governing body join this lawsuit.
Amicus Brief
At tonight’s City Council meeting, the governing body most likely will be voting on a resolution to file an amicus (friend of the court) brief in support of the lawsuit that has been filed by members of “Stand Up for Asbury.” I will be voting NO on this resolution, and I’d like to tell you why. But first, I’d like to clear up some misinformation.
In their literature, the group “Stand Up For Asbury” wrongly states that, “There are 7 other shelters in Asbury Park that have overnight sleeping quarters for the homeless.” And the Coaster printed that information in their July 13th edition without any fact-checking, I later learned. There are not 7 shelters in Asbury Park. There are currently NO shelters in Asbury Park that offer overnight sleeping quarters for the homeless. There are seven agencies that offer services for the homeless and transitional residential housing for specific populations (abused women, HIV/AIDS, etc.) but there is no agency currently operating in Asbury Park that would meet the loosest definition of a homeless shelter.
There are three main reasons why I will vote NO on the resolution to file an amicus brief.
First, I believe that filing this amicus brief is a waste of taxpayer money. I believe it is a waste of money because I am fairly confident that the lawsuit will not be successful and that my colleagues may be pursuing this action for purely political reasons.
I believe the amicus brief is a waste of taxpayer money because our lawyers will have to take the time to research the issue, draft the amicus brief and file it on our behalf – all to the tune of $110 per hour over roughly 30-40 hours.
Second, I will be voting NO on this resolution tonight because, as a member of the Affordable Housing Subcommittee, I know that we do indeed have a homeless problem in Asbury Park which exists right now and needs to be addressed. That said, I also agree that there are serious concerns with certain Market Street Mission policies and with bringing in more people to Asbury Park who are not current or former residents that will need social services. I did not seek out the Market Street Mission or vote to have them come to Asbury Park, but I will engage them on the issues of concern that I share with many of you.
I will engage the Market Street Mission regarding their troubling policies on background checks, their exclusion of gay clients and their plans for clients during the day and when clients are discharged from the Mission. I had hoped to have done this prior to tonight’s vote, but the Management of the Mission has been advised not to meet with any members of the governing body or engage in any discussion whatsoever until the litigation is resolved. In light of this, I have already begun to seek information from other sources. To gain a better understanding of how good of a “neighbor” the Market Street Mission has been in its hometown of Morristown, I have reached out to the Mayor of Morristown, the Chief of Police of Morristown, and the Director of Human Services. To date, I am still waiting to hear from the Mayor, but from those whom I have spoken with, I have not received any information that the Market Street Mission’s operation in Morristown has been significantly problematic.
I will also engage the County and State Offices of Human Services and Social Services and request a clear plan of action that regionalizes the responsibility for helping the homeless. The first phase of this engagement would be to get us the resources we need to adequately service the needs in our community. The second phase would be to create a countywide and/or statewide plan to share the responsibilities, financial and otherwise, to end homelessness in NJ. In my research, I have found a plan that was put forth by the New Jersey State Policy Academy Team to do just this. Their “Preliminary Action Plan to End Homelessness in New Jersey” can be found at:
http://www.hrsa.gov/homeless/state_pages/pa4/ap/nj_ap.htm
Just today I had a conversation with Deborah De Santis, the Director of the Corporation for Supportive Housing and one of the co-chairs of the Policy Academy Team that authored the plan. The discussion was very enlightening and I will be meeting with her and the members of the CEAS Committee (Comprehensive Emergency Assistance System) this coming week to begin to address homeless issues specific to Asbury Park.
Finally, I will be voting NO on this resolution tonight because for me this is an issue of conscience and a moral decision. Would it be easier for me to just sign on to this brief and remain fairly silent on the issue, leading people to believe I’m 100% with them– yes. Would signing the brief be the politically expedient thing to do– yes. But I believe it is the wrong thing to do for the wrong reasons.
I hope that the information I have provided and clarifying my position has been helpful and I appreciate any feedback from constituents that you feel may be useful.
Peace, JWK
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)