Democrats oppose reform to prevent future solar scams

At last night's NJ Herald debate, Democrat candidate for Freeholder Patrick Curreri came out squarely against the reform that would have prevented the solar program that ended in a $26 million debt for Sussex County Taxpayers.  Four Freeholder candidates held the debate in Newton this evening, Democrat Howard Zatkowsky was absent.

Democrat Curreri opposed the steps taken by neighboring Warren County which has established the requirement of voter approval for discretionary county bonding for projects such as the one that became the solar debacle in Sussex County.  The reform has been so successful in Warren County that the county has been able to cut property taxes there.  In contrast, Sussex County has had to raise its property taxes year after year.

Warren County passed the reform in a 2013 ordinance which requires voter approval for bonding that exceeds 2 percent of the annual appropriations of the county.  As Freeholder Herb Yardley said:  "This ordinance would provide a check on spending.  It would slow down the process of acquiring debt and it would force it out into the open to be debated publicly and then voted up or down."

The reform being proposed is one that is already used by local towns.  In 2017, Newton voters shot down a school bonding referendum.  The voters of Newton had the opportunity to take on $18 million at a cost to them and their families of $337 per household for the next 20 years.  They weighed the benefits with the costs and said NO.  This reform places county government under the same discipline.  It is a reform that expands transparency and democracy.

At the close of the debate, Curreri had the opportunity to correct his position on reform, but when asked by Herald reporter Bruce Scruton directly, he reiterated his opposition to no borrowing without the approval of the voters.  Curreri said he OPPOSED the reform on live video and to the crowd in Newton.

Why does Sussex County pay its administrator more than more populated counties do?

The Sussex County Freeholder majority of Jonathan Rose, Carl Lazzaro, and Boss George Graham reward their cronies – while they continue to piss on average county workers.  Take the County Administrator as an example.

The current County Administrator was installed by Boss Graham and the boys at a salary that is over-sized for the population of Sussex County.  But that is okay by them, because this guy follows the script they hand him to the letter.  We’re concerned actually, because if Boss Graham ever stopped short, the county administrator might find his head lodged up Graham’s backside.

Sussex County has a population of 142,000 and falling.  But its new county administrator pockets $180,000 plus a packet of perks and benefits that would choke a horse.

On the other hand, Bergen County, with a population that rivals some states (approx. 939,000) pays its county administrator just $171,182. 

Essex County – with Newark in it and all the problems that come with a big urban area (population: approx. 796,000) – its county administrator makes $142,640. 

Hudson County – with Jersey City – and a population of 677,983, pays its county administrator $167,028.  And this guy has been on the job for decades. 

Another populous (approx. 555,000) county, Union, pays its county administrator $172,000.

Morris County, population 498,423, has a county administrator who earns $171,844. 

Passaic County, population 507,945, pays its county administrator $177,012. 

Neighboring Warren County (population: approx.. 106,000) pays its county administrator $143, 235 – and he’s been on the job since 1999! 

Smaller counties tend to pay less for their county administrators, on the order of Salem ($80,000) or Cape May ($110,000).  So why do we pay so much, here in Sussex County? 

Well, boys will be boys – or rather, the boys will be the boys.

Warren County is set to cut county property taxes

Under the leadership of outgoing Freeholder Director Ed Smith, Warren County cut spending and debt and held the line on property taxes.  Because of their fiscal discipline, now the Warren County Freeholders can actually cut property taxes for county residents.

Here are a few of the headlines from Warren County...

Warren County looking at lowest budget in 9 years

www.wfmz.com/news/western-new-jersey/warren-county-looking...budget.../21564666

Feb 25, 2016 - WHITE TWP., N.J. - For the first time since 2012, Warren County is looking at a balanced budget, according to freeholders. Warren County officials moved forward with the 2016 budget Wednesday , setting their eyes on attracting new business to the county. The proposed budget shows no tax increase and ...

Warren Co. Freeholders pass 2017 budget with no tax increase

www.wfmz.com/news/western-new-jersey/warren-co...pass...budget.../409621003

Mar 22, 2017 - Warren County Freeholders passed the 2017 county budget with no tax levy increases Wednesday night.

Warren County keeps taxes flat in lowest budget since 2005 ...

www.lehighvalleylive.com/warren-county/index.../warren_countys_918m_budget.ht...

Mar 24, 2017 - Warren County's $91.8 million spending plan for 2017 provides for a new library location and continued courthouse repairs without any added impact to taxpayers. The annual budget -- the county's lowest since 2005 -- was unanimously approved by the three-member freeholder board this week. Spending ... 

In contrast, we have Sussex County.  Our residents have seen property taxes, spending, and debt go up every year.  

Freeholders introduce budget, up 3.47 percent with tax hike

Posted: Mar. 24, 2017 12:01 am 

The budget is a 3.47 percent increase from last year's $109.4 million budget and the total tax levy would increase by nearly $4.3 million to $89.14 million countywide.

The proposed budget would increase taxes $61.70 per $100,000 of assessed value on the average homeowner. The tax rate is 53 cents per $100 of assessed value, compared to 50 cents per $100 of assessed value last year.

It is time for Sussex County to follow Warren County in adopting a no borrowing without voter approval ordinance.  It is a reform that leads to less spending. less debt, and lower property taxes.  It will end back room deals and the hard sell-jobs by so-called county "experts."  Just the facts, transparency, open discussion, and then the voters -- the taxpayers -- decide.

McCann campaign caught exaggerating again

The statement from John McCann's campaign reads:  "Dr. Darrell Scott endorses John McCann for Congress."

Who is Darrell Scott? 

His Wikipedia page states:  "As a minor, Scott aspired to be a drug dealer and pimp; Scott sold drugs, used cocaine, stole automobiles and took his father's 9mm pistol to school at age 16 and was expelled for it.  While in his 20's, Scott became a born again Christian after being inspired by his wife who was born again months earlier, after a neighbor had urged her to attend church. 

Scott is the founder and pastor of New Spirit Revival Center, in Cleveland Heights, Ohio.  Scott's non-denominational church operates out of a former Jewish Synagogue built in 1924, a 115k square foot facility, that has a daycare, banquet hall and radio station, with 3,500 members as of 2005.  The radio station broadcasts under call sign WCCD (1000 AM) – branded Radio 1000. WCCD."

In the 2016 presidential election, Darrell Scott became a prominent African-American supporter of Donald Trump.  Speaking of Darrell Scott, candidate John McCann said: "Dr. Scott is an inspirational leader fighting for change in Washington.  I look forward to going to Washington to work with our President and Dr. Scott to revitalize our communities and win for every American."

What does this mean? 

Well, in March of last year, Darrell Scott suggested to the President of the United States that he was in contact with the "top gang thugs" in Chicago and that they would agree to "lower the body count" if the Trump administration would agree to "come and do some social programs."

Yeah, no shit.

There was a huge and damaging (to Trump) outcry over these comments and Darrell Scott had to walk them back.  His excuse was that he was tired when he made the comments.

Here is a video and story from Fox News in Chicago:

http://www.fox32chicago.com/news/local/ohio-pastor-walks-back-comment-chicago-gang-leaders-trump

But what we're interested in is where that title "Doctor" comes from.  As Darrell Scott is a pastor, we are quite content to honor him with the title "Reverend," but "Doctor" indicates that he holds a "Doctorate" in some subject and Wikipedia doesn't list any institution of higher education that he attended. 

So we looked into it a bit, and we discovered that Darrell Scott's "doctorate" is an honorary one, from an unaccredited institution.  Out of respect for Darrell Scott, we will not go into the details, but we suggest to the McCann campaign that they update their statement to read "Rev. Darrell Scott" and leave "Dr." for those who have earned that title.

The Democrats' moocher towns strike again

Congressman Josh Gottheimer (NJ-05) claims that some places "mooch" off other places when they get back from government more than they pay in.  According to Gottheimer, the country's top "moocher" is Mississippi, the state with the highest percentage of African-American residents -- 37 percent and growing -- because the state gets more back than they pay in. 

Is Gottheimer a racist?  Last Friday, Gottheimer was joined at a press conference by Democrats Phil Murphy and Tim Eustace to discuss ways to redress this "moocher" situation.  Are they coddling Gottheimer's racism?  If so, has anyone told the incoming First Lady?  New Jersey's answer to Madame Mao will not be amused.

If there are "moocher states" as Democrat Gottheimer claims, can we apply Gottheimer's measurement to other cases -- such as the relationship between municipalities or school districts within a state?  If, as the Democrat Congressman claims, there are places that "mooch" off the federal government, does it not also follow that there are places that "mooch" off state government?

We've already learned that towns like Sparta get back just 15 cents on every dollar they pay in state income tax to Trenton.  That's right, in what Congressman Gottheimer would call a clear case of mooching, Asbury Park paid in just a sixth -- in income taxes per person -- of what Sparta did, but got back 17 times more!

            Sparta Twp  $5,611,989 (received) / $36,267,481 (paid) = $0.15

            Asbury Park $57,632,816 (received) / $3,835,809 (paid) = $15.02 

We've also learned how poor families in suburban and rural New Jersey are subsidizing rich people in chic urban hotspots.  Their cut of the revenue from the state income tax allows these hotspots to keep their property taxes comparatively low.  For example, despite being clearly being economically better-off, Hoboken gets its property taxes underwritten by the income tax revenue paid by rural Warren County:

 Warren County has double the population of Hoboken City (107,000 to 52,000) but the population of Hoboken has been growing while Warren is shrinking (5% vs. -1%).  And while Hoboken has just 800 veterans, Warren County has over 7,000.  The per capita income of Hoboken City is over $70,000.  This compares with Warren County, at $33,000.  The median value of an owner-occupied home is $550,700 in Hoboken but only $271,100 in Warren County.  The U.S. Census reported that 5.5% of the people in Hoboken are without health insurance vs. 12.5% of those in Warren County.  73.5% of those 25 or older in Hoboken have graduated from college.  In Warren County that figure is 29.6%.

Enter the State Highlands Act... Passed by a Democrat-controlled Legislature and signed into law by Democrat Governor Jim McGreevey, the Highlands Act undertakes the worthy cause of preserving the aquifer that supplies the drinking water for a large urban population in Northern New Jersey.  Unfortunately, it does so at the expense of rural and suburban property owners -- who saw their land rights seized and the use of their land forcibly regulated -- without compensation. 

The Highlands Region encompasses nearly 859,267 acres across seven counties -- including Sussex and Warren Counties.  In the phrase coined by Democrat Gottheimer -- upscale urban areas are "mooching" off economically disadvantaged rural areas and the state is refusing to provide compensation to those being "mooched" upon.

On Monday, in one of the last legislative acts of the year, Congressman Gottheimer's fellow Democrats made it a point to further piss on the hopes and property rights of the economically disadvantaged communities under the boot of the Highlands Act, by undoing a Christie administration rule that allowed a small measure of development in those areas affected.  With incoming Governor Phil Murphy urging them on from the sidelines, the Democrat-controlled Legislature rescinded the Christie rule and, in so doing, made the property in question next to worthless. 

As Josh Gottheimer would say, the Democrats once again gave more to the "moochers" and took away more from those being "mooched" upon.

Republicans like Senator Steve Oroho and Assemblyman Parker Space gave it their best, but with Phil Murphy's full support for the "moochers" and a Democrat-controlled Legislature, the resolution overturning the Christie rule barely passed the state Senate with the minimum 21 votes needed and the Assembly with 42 votes.  One of those votes to help the "moochers" at the expense of those "mooched" upon was cast by Assemblyman Tim Eustace -- who was at last Friday's press conference with Phil Murphy and Josh Gottheimer -- to complain about the "moochers"!  How is that for hypocrisy!

Why do Trenton Democrats continue to support allowing rich people in towns like Hoboken to "mooch" off poor families in places like Warren County?  Somebody needs to ask Democrats like Phil Murphy and Tim Eustace next time they hold a press conference with Josh Gottheimer to complain about "moocher states."