WolfeNotes.com

Billionaire Paul Firestone Funds Front Groups To Sow Divisive Fake Debate

Democratic Legislators Are All In And Are Fast Tracking Legislation

The Gov. Must Stand Up And Stop This Desecration

(above photo originally posted in “Birds Eye View – Liberty State Park” – March 1, 2008)

Murphy DEP Commissioner Shawn LaTourette curiously was AWOL last Thursday, as the Senate Environment Committee rammed a controversial bill to commercialize, privatize, develop, and destroy world renowned Liberty State Park. (read the amazing story of what went down at the hearing:

The state Department of Environmental Protection, which leads the task force formed to study the park’s future, did not appear at Thursday’s hearing.

Instead, a makeover plan was presented by Alan Mountjoy of the Boston-based firm NBBJ, an architect hired by one of the advocacy groups tied to Fireman.

Mountjoy showed renderings of a vastly different park than the mostly open space and interior woodland that exists today.

But Latourette had time to Tweet (and attend?) a “Pride” event at the Park the night before.

That contrast is a classic example of what Professor Nancy Fraser calls “Progressive Neoliberalism”, where cultural issues are used to mask a pro-corporate economic agenda and divert, dupe, manipulate, and co-opt progressive activists and media alike.

Gov. Murphy has repeatedly used that cynical strategy. We are not fooled.

He must not get away with that to let a billionaire manipulate legitimate grievances and effectively buy and destroy Liberty State Park.

This is what happens when a billionaire like Paul Fireman spreads a little money around in a cynical, divisive & racist strategy to promote his golf course, a scheme that is masked by fake front groups and corrupt Democratic politicians.

I was disgusted by the racist spectacle in Trenton – Fireman has cynically used fake front groups and manipulated poor black kids, lonely old people, and high school athletes who lack fields to play on – problems that are a result of the greed of developers and lack of planning, not preservation of the Park.

Somehow, the entire gamut of social problems were linked to the preservation of Liberty State Park.  Very cynically, the false promise of a solution was claimed to be development of the park (which largely would benefit a Florida based billionaire and his private golf course members and other wealthy elites who will use the commercial facilities he wants to develop in the Park).

In a very sophisticated campaign, one witness defended park development as a solution to prevent drownings of poor minority kids who lacked swimming pools. Another witness supporting the bill complained of the isolation of old age. Others spoke of the risks of violence to kids, who have nowhere safe to play.

In a move that would make Orwell blush, they call themselves “Parks for People”.

The Legislature is fast tracking the bill – the Assembly will hear the companion bill A4264 on Wednesday.

The plan is to ram the bill through both Houses as part of the budget negotiations and have a bill on Governor Murphy’s desk before the end of June.

Friends of Liberty State Park have dubbed the legislation the “Billionaire Paul Fireman Liberty State Park Commercialization, Privatization and Exclusion” bill.

At this point, the Legislature appears to have been bought off –

Senator Smith’s rationales for the amendments, which were very cynically designed to create the appearance of responding to critics, and the rapid movement of the Assembly companion are solid evidence that the deal is in. It’s even possible that the $250 million appropriation in the bill could be stripped and the bill pass to promote development but with no public money.

The park supporters’ focus needs to shift quickly to Gov. Murphy and people must demand that he stand up to his own party and veto this outrage.

[End Note: For over 30 years, despite frequent disagreements, I’ve criticized his weakness but basically respected Senator Smith (with a few exceptions).

But given how he’s handled the State Parks and LSP issues, that respect is gone and it ain’t coming back.

Now I understand why he attacked critics of his Parks privatization bill as “paranoid schizophrenics” and why he lashed out at LSP supporters several times during last Thursday’s hearing.

The criticism is obviously getting under his skin.

I suspect that it must be tough for Smith to look in the mirror these days.

Privatization of Planning for Public Parks

NJ Future Conducts Covert Privatization Planning With Christie DEP

Now it’s getting interesting.

[*Full disclosure: I was consulted by and provided assistance to plaintiff’s counsel.]

In the latest development in the controversy over the Christie Administration’s scheme to privatize and commercialize Liberty State Park, on Friday, a Jersey City resident filed an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) lawsuit to compel DEP to release public records on Park development plans.

Scott Fallon of the Bergen Record first reported that the Christie DEP paid NJ Future, a private planning group, $120,000 to develop plans for privatizing the park.

On July 14, 2015, NJDEP denied an OPRA request for the NJ Future report to DEP made by plaintiff, William P. Bednarz, of Jersey City.

What could the Christie DEP and NJ Future have to hide?

Mr. Bednarz is represented by attorneys Walter M. Luers and H Howard Moskowitz, who wrote: (boldface emphases mine)

As set forth in the June 2, 2014 $120,000 Grant Agreement, also attached, the NJF report was to “detail[] findings and recommendations for Liberty State Park” in pursuit of “NJDEP’s goal to have LSP increase revenue and become financially sustainable,” including, among other matters, “[r]evenue projections for any suggested” development, a “list of potential developers/contractors,” and a discussion of “[p]otential issues and risks of recommendations.” The contract provides that NJDEP “facilitate” meetings between NJF’s consultant and undefined “LSP stakeholders.” Attachment A, at 1, 2.

The report was necessary, according to the grant agreement, in light of NJDEP’s “realiz[ation] that the State lacks the entrepreneurial expertise to design and effect[uate] those changes.” Id. at 1.

In short, the New Jersey Future report is a manual on how to monetize and commercialize Liberty State Park in implementation of Governor Christie’s plan to “save” New Jersey’s state parks, announced in November 2011, entitled “Sustainable Funding Strategy for New Jersey State Parks.”

The report is a government record “subject to public access” under OPRA as a “document that has been received in the course of the State’s official business.”

I got a real kick out of this DEP “realization”:

“realiz[ation] that the State lacks the entrepreneurial expertise to design and effect[uate] those changes.” Id. at 1.

Of course DEP Parks lacks entrepreneurial expertise to privatize – their job is to manage parks in the public interest for the enjoyment of visitors, not to make profits!

Once again, Christie’s privatization policy and DEP Commissioner Bob Martin’s “transformation” initiative to radically change DEP’s mission to “promote economic development” are shown to be absurd.

Based on my own successful litigation experience with OPRA, they have a strong case and are very likely to win.

Public release of the NJ Future Report to DEP is critical, because NJ Future was obviously acting on behalf of the Christie DEP in privately planning for private park development. DEP used NJF to avoid public scrutiny.

Now DEP is compounding that abuse by trying to cover the whole thing up by denying access to public records.

NJ Future should be ashamed of themselves for conducting covert planning for NJ’s most popular State Park.

According to the DEP’s contract with NJ Future, NJF was required to submit a Report that:

So, what were NJ Future’s “recommended activities that can produce revenue”?

What aspects of the Park were “attractive” “to revenue producing developers, contractors and concessionaires”?

What “developers/contractors” did NJ Future identify?

What areas and buildings at LSP did NJ Future recommend developing?

What “revenue projections” did NJ Future generate?

What “stakeholders” did NJ Future interview and consult?

The public demands answers!

Shame on both NJ Future and the Christie DEP for a covert strategy to avoid public involvement in park planning and for their craven revenue driven privatization scheme.

Mr Moskowitz was kind enough to provide the contract documents – sorry I have no links, but they are available upon request.

[Update: 9/3/15 – Scott Fallon broke the NJ Future DEP project, so I would have thought he’s have been a lot stronger in his story on that and the Christie “Sustainable parks” privatization and commercialization scheme – Fallon puts that in the most favorable light possible:

Efforts to generate more money at Liberty State are part of Christie’s Sustainable Parks initiative, unveiled in 2011 to reduce the park system’s reliance on the state budget.

What a wuss.

Sweeney Quietly Abandons His Clean “Repair” Bill

Sellout Promotes Commercialization of Liberty State Park

Will Gov. Christie Sign A Bill To Commercialize A National Icon?

Liberty State Park was sold out (again) during back room legislative maneuvers in yesterday’s hectic last minute budget session.

We need to rehash a little recent history in order to make this maneuver understandable.

Recall that last year, the Legislature rammed through a bill to consolidate the Hackensack Meadowlands Commission with the NJ Sports and Exposition Authority.

Despite the fact that Liberty State Park (LSP) is not located in the Meadowlands, that bill included a provision that would give the new Meadowlands Commission jurisdiction over Liberty State Park, including a new role in developing the park.

LSP supporters, who successfully have fought privatization and commercialization projects in the park for decades, cried foul and mounted an effort to urge Governor Christie to veto the bill.

We tried to explain why that effort was useless, given Gov. Christie’s own Parks Privatization policy and his DEP’s secret promotion of commercialization plans, including masking them via a $120,000 park development study conducted by the private planning group NJ Future and a New York City development firm.

After the Gov. signed the bill into law, in an embarrassing sequence, Democratic legislators initially denied knowledge of the LSP amendments, then they said they had no intent to commercialize or develop the Park, and then they promised to fix the problem.

Assembly Speaker Prieto then sponsored a bill he claimed would repair the damage that he claimed was inadvertently caused by the Meadowlands consolidation bill he sponsored.

I explained why Prieto’s bill would not solve the problem, which could only be solved by a “clean” bill that simply deleted LSP from the Meadowlands Consolidation law and eliminated any role for the new Meadowlands Commission at LSP, see:

• Liberty State Park “Cleanup” Bill Fails to Correct The Problem
• Prieto’s Straw Man On Liberty State Park Does Not Pass The Straight Face Test

Senator Sweeney stepped in to save the day.

Sweeney’s bill – the introduced version, that is  – proposed to solve the problem by simply deleting LSP from the Meadowlands Consolidation law and eliminating any role for the new Meadowlands Commission.

Under this bill, the entirety of the provision regarding Liberty State Park would be removed from the law, leaving the commission with no authority or responsibility with respect to the park. 

Sweeney got good press for this, see:

Bill seeks to lift control of Jersey City’s Liberty State Park from sports agency

a bill by Senate President Stephen Sweeney would return all development powers at the park to the Department of Environmental Protection, which oversees the state park system. Although Governor Christie would be likely to veto it, Sweeney’s bill could disrupt the administration’s goal of helping to finance private development at the park in Jersey City.

Park advocates welcomed the new legislation.

The Sierra C lub praised Sweeney in a May 21, 2105 press release:

Sweeney Bill Protects Liberty State Park

Senate President Stephen Sweeney is sponsoring bill S2866 that would remove jurisdiction of Liberty State Park from under the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority. This bill would delete the section that gave the power to NJSEA and return power to New Jersey DEP Division of Parks and Forestry. The bill would also require any leases or concessions to go through appropriate public review. The Christie Administration’s goal is for private development in the park. The Sierra Club supports this new bill to remove the park from private control. We support bill S2866 because it helps to protect Liberty State Park.

Well, Sweeney may have wanted to protect Liberty State Park back in May, but yesterday, he sold LSP out by amending his bill to reflect the sham Prieto bill.

Despite enormous public opposition and a ton of media coverage, the Legislature has now explicitly sold out Liberty State Park TWICE, and lied about it both times.

There must be a powerful deal in the works to drive these kind of corrupt legislative maneuvers.

The Prieto bill passed both houses and is on the Governor’s desk.

Will Gov. Christie, in the midst of a Presidential campaign, sign a bill that would promote privatization and commercialization of a national icon?

I thank Howard Moskowitz, Esq. for bringing this to my attention. I was focused on yesterday’s Clean Energy/Climate Coalition event.

DEP’s support for a new Meadowlands Commission role is the threat to Liberty State Park

Any bill to repair the damage must exclude Meadowlands Commission from any role at LSP

[Update below]

I just read the Jersey Journal story on Speaker Prieto’s Liberty State Park “repair bill” that we criticized yesterday, see

• New bill gives DEP Commissioner final say on Liberty State Park development plans

That’s exactly the misleading headline Prieto wanted, because most people think DEP is out to do the right thing and protect the park from development.

But that assumption is false with respect to the Christie DEP, who is actively promoting parks development.

According to Speaker Prieto, his “repair bill”  (A4196 [1R]) is supposed to fix the alleged inadvertent error in the law that established a new Meadowlands Regional Commission.

Prieto’s Office is quoted thusly:

“Speaker Prieto has consistently said that the DEP should have final say on any plans involving Liberty State Park,” said Philip Swibinski, a spokesman for Prieto. “He has worked with environmental advocacy groups and other stakeholders to ensure that this always remains the case by sponsoring this legislation and he will continue to support it.”

The issue is not and never was whether DEP had “final say”. That is a straw man.

The Bergen Record already exposed this “DEP final say” as a straw man argument.

On January 5, 2015, the Bergen Record reported that multiple sources confirmed that the DEP requested the amendments to involve the Meadowlands Commission, see:

• DEP requested change in Liberty park oversight

On February 12, 2015, NJTV quoted Prieto, who confirmed that DEP requested the amendments:

“The DEP requested the language giving it the ability to use the Meadowlands Regional Commission as a tool to evaluate and implement plans and the commission can only become involved at the request of the DEP commissioner,” said Prieto in a statement today.

Prieto’s explanation of why DEP asked for the amendments makes absolutely no sense – no sense at all and is a straw man.

Just asking very basic questions shows that Prieto’s straw man doesn’t pass the straight face test – questions like this:

1. Why would DEP want the Meadowlands Commission involved at the Park?

DEP already owns, manages, controls, and regulates Liberty State Park. They have no need for the Meadowlands Commission’s help to continue those park services.

Besides, have you ever seen a bureaucracy that wanted to share and dilute its power, control and legal authority?

2. Why would DEP want or need the Meadowlands Commission to “evaluate and implement plans” at the Park?

DEP already has professional parks planners and mangers on staff, and an ability to retain specialized contract consultants for planning, design, architectural, engineering, etc work they can not do.

DEP has no need for Meadowlands Commission involvement in “evaluating and implementing plans” at the park – unless the work “implement” is a mask for FINANCING DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARK.

3. Why would DEP request changes in law to involve the Meadowlands Commission at Liberty State Park?

4. At a time when its very difficult for both Chairs of Environmental Committees to get DEP to testify or to even provide information regarding legislation, why was DEP so eager to get involved and seek amendments to this Meadowlands bill ?

5. Why would DEP request these amendments in a stealth fashion?

6. What does the Meadowlands Commission have to contribute to  park planning or management?

• What we know answers those questions

To ask the question is to answer it.

So, let’s look  at Prieto’s straw man in light of what we know.

• We know that Gov. Christie has an aggressive privatization policy
• We know that Gov. Christie is desperately seeking revenues to close budget deficits he has created via billions of dollars in corporate tax cuts
• We know that Gov. Christie is willing to cut dirty deals that sacrifice the environment to get those revenues
• We know that Gov. Christie will use executive power to divert revenues that are not Constitutionally dedicated
• We know that Gov. Christie’s “Sustainable Parks Strategy” seeks to maximize revenue generating potential of State parks
• We know that DEP has development plans for LSP
• We know that DEP provided a $120,000 grant to NJ Future to study development of the Park
• We know that neither DEP nor NJ Future will release that development study
• We know that DEP is broke and can not issue bonds
• We know that any lease or concession revenue generated at the Park is constitutionally dedicated to the Open Space Fund as a result of the November ballot question, so therefore those revenues could NOT be used for some kind of public private partnership or contract/lease revenue based financing scheme.

The obvious answer is that DEP needs the Meadowlands Commission to finance park development schemes.

That is why any “cleanup” or “repair” legislation must completely remove the Meadowlands Commission from Liberty State Park and restore the status quo.

That is why Prieto’s spin does not pass the straight face test.

And that is why NY/NJ Baykeeper and FLSP compromise with and support of Prieto’s “repair bill” is a really bad move.

[Update: NJ Future, while raising much broader regional planning issues, also opposes the LSP provisions of Prieto’s bill.

NJ Future’s testimony argues that the issue is based on development rights:

4. It transfers to the Sports and Exposition Authority the development rights to Liberty State Park, putting the state’s largest urban park at risk of unbridled development. The Liberty State Park development issue is not resolved adequately in this bill. While the bill makes it clear that DEP still maintains “ownership” of the park, the Sports and Exposition Authority in effect has the development rights, which means that they can make all decisions about what gets developed in the park. Development rights can be separated from ownership. There is no additional authority, review or approval required by the Sports and Exposition Authority to develop anything and everything within the park. These development rights should remain with DEP. We recommend eliminating this section in its entirety. It is our understanding that the DEP and the Sports and Exposition Authority already have the legal means to create inter-agency agreements to do all the things that DEP says it wants done, which is a much more transparent and reasonable approach.

A much more transparent approach! That’s rich, coming from the group that did a secret development study.

Now, if NJ Future would disclose just what it is that “DEP says it wants done” and post the $120,000 study they managed covertly for DEP

New Meadowlands Regional Commission Should Have No Role in LSP

Park Advocates Negotiate a Terrible Compromise

Yesterday, following an unusual marathon 2 1/2 hour presentation by the hydrogen fuel cell industry, the Assembly Commerce and Economic Development Committee approved a bill (A4196) designed to honor Assembly Speaker Prieto’s pledge to fix alleged mistakes in the Meadowlands bill rammed through the legislature a week before the new year’s holidays (see:

• Prieto to introduce bill that would protect Liberty State Park from development

We previously explained the flaws in Prieto’s bill and why it would not solve the problem and still be used to promote development in LSP.

In a nutshell, we think it is obvious – by their own policy documents and public statements printed in the newspapers  – that the Christie DEP has an agenda to commercialize and privatize Liberty State Park and use the park as a revenue generator. We think that agenda fundamentally conflicts with basic principles of public park planning and management.

Our main technical argument with the new Meadowlands legislation is that because parks lease and concession revenues are now Constitutionally dedicated to the Open Space fund – which restricts their use and can only be allocated in the budget appropriations process –  that DEP is using the new Meadowlands Commission to evade this revenue restriction.

Specifically, development projects in the park would be “a project of the commission” (see page 26), not a DEP State park. This provision could be used legally to dodge the revenue dedication.

Jeff Tittel of Sierra Club argued that the same provision – development as “a project of the commission” – is designed to evade the Ogden/Rooney process for leases/conveyances of state lands, which requires public hearings and State House Commission approval.

So we thought our friends at Friends of Liberty State Park fully understood that too, particularly in light of Sam Pesin’s kick ass letter just 1 month ago, see:

• Shame on Prieto for not protecting Liberty State Park from new Meadowlands commission

So we were shocked and extremely disappointed to hear Sam and Deb Mans of NY/NJ Baykeeper testify in support – that’s right support – of Prieto’s flawed bill.

They negotiated and agreed to minor cosmetic amendments that do not address the underlying problems with the bill and will continue to promote commercialization and development of LSP without adequate public review.

With no public discussion with all the groups and people involved in the LSP battle, Baykeeper and Pesin negotiated a terrible back room compromise that seems more like it’s about protecting Prieto and Democratic legislators than LSP.

I don’t blame Sam Pesin or FLSP for this, I think Sam was manipulated by Deb Mans of Baykeeeper into accepting a terrible compromise as the “best deal” they could hope to get.

Their deal must be opposed by all supporters of Liberty State Park.

[This is a winnable battle: parks supporters have a strong principled argument and are well organized. Their efforts already won victories in restoring parks funding in the open space implementation bill, generated huge press coverage and editorial support, and forced Speaker Prieto on the defensive.  Which makes the fact that they cut a bad compromise at this point completely bizarre.]

• Here are some basic and non-negotiable facts

First of all, Liberty State Park is not located in the Meadowlands, so the Meadowlands Commission should have no jurisdiction there. None.

Second, the Meadowlands Commission has no institutional history, capacity or expertise in park planning or management. So, again, the Meadowlands Commission should have no role. None, zero, zilch, nada.

[update – this comment is over the top and not accurate – Meadowlands has experience – see comment below]

Third, the LSP amendment was quietly requested  by the DEP and stealthed into a severely flawed piece of complex legislation and rammed through the legislature before people and legislators could read or remotely understand what the bill would do.

Fourth, AFTER the bill was approved by the Legislature, the Bergen Record disclosed the fact that DEP had secretly – with no public contracting or planning process – laundered $120,000 to the corporate oriented planning group NJ Future to conduct a planning study of development potential in Liberty State Park.

That’s right, a planning study about development in LSP – done by a private development planning group and with no public participation.

Interestingly, even NJ Future opposed Prieto’s bill yesterday.

We believe that Governor Christie’s “Sustainable Parks Strategy”, which seeks to use State Parks to leverage revenue generation – through commercialization, privatization, and increased user fees – is driving the DEP’s LSP development schemes.

Accordingly, the LSP amendments can only be perceived as in bad faith and the means to implement some kind of covert agenda for the park that would never withstand public scrutiny and must be done covertly.

The only acceptable “cleanup” bill must delete all jurisdiction and role of the Meadowlands Commission in Liberty State Park.

The NY/NJBaykeeper & Pesin compromise must be rejected.

We will work to do that via Assembly floor amendments that strip the LSP from the new law and with Senate sponsors. We urge you to join that effort.

In addition to blocking any Meadowlands Commission role at Liberty State Park, real statewide parks system reforms require  passage of new legislation that would that mandate that any significant DEP parks planning and development projects be subject to a public planning process and comply with some standards to preserve the integrity of the public park as public space, ensure full public access, enhance design and aesthetics, and protect the natural resources of the parks.