Archive for May, 2016

Trenton “peaked” decades ago.   My cursory research into the city’s history points to a high point either the late 1920s when the city’s population was around 140,000 or perhaps in the 1950s when much of America was enjoying a post war boom.   However, since then broad, and well known economic and social forces have conspired to challenge industrial cities like Trenton.

Some cities have responded to the challenge and have reinvented themselves.   We know about Savannah, Pittsburgh and to some extent Cleveland and Cincinnati.   Cities in the South like Winston-Salem and Richmond managed their way through the change.   It can be done.   Trenton didn’t do it.

Instead of revitalizing, Trenton has sunk to lows unimaginable in America’s new suburban townships.   We’ve squandered millions of dollars on publicly owned hotels and parking garages.   A Mayor has been sent to a Federal penitentiary.  Our graduation has sunk to below 50%.  Below 50%!   Our murder rate has flirted with being the highest in the nation.  We’ve had almost $5,000,0000 stolen from right under our noses.  Our water has been unsafe.  Our taxes are the highest in New Jersey.  We’ve lost population.   Over half of the land in the city is tax exempt.   We’ve closed our libraries.   Our City Council has failed to provide oversight and occasionally Council meetings turn in to fist fights.  The list goes on.

However, the people of Trenton are not helpless.  We can take control of this problem and provide the ultimate fix.

We can tear down our form of government and start over!

In 1962 Trenton did just that.  The Trenton Council at the time formed a citizen’s commission to study the problem of whether the current form of government was appropriate for the times.  That group took a year and developed a very considered opinion that “no, it wasn’t”.  They therefore recommended that the City adopt the now familiar, Strong Mayor form of government as outlined under the Faulkner Act of the State of New Jersey.   The Faulkner Act spells out several different forms of government including a strong Mayor, a weak Mayor and a City Manager approach.  So no, we’re not locked in to what we have now which spells out 7 council member (4 of them At Large), a Mayor and a Business Administrator.   We can decide that this isn’t working for us.   The evidence (population decline, tax base decline, income decline relative to the State, graduation rate decline and high crime rates) would suggest that it hasn’t “worked” for some time.

Link to 1962 Commission Report

Link to 1962 Ordinance Forming our new Government

One of three things can happen:

1)      The Trenton City Council can take action to form a citizen’s commission to look in to the matter and if needed propose a change.  The change, if recommended would be voted on in a city referendum.  This process would take about a year.

2)      Citizens can form a committee on their own to force the creation of the citizen’s commission.  This action would be similar in scope to Trenton’s recent recall ballot measure, our Pay to Play ballot initiative and smaller ballot measures to simply stagger terms in office for City Council

3)      We can do nothing and hope for the best

The most interesting of the several options under the Faulkner Act is the Council – Manager form of government.  This would allow our elected City Council to hire a professional manager. Typically, this is used in smaller cities where the local talent pool isn’t likely to produce a professional city administrator.   The upside is that we can give this “employee” goals, they can be selected from a national pool of candidates with resumes and the Manager can be fired if they aren’t doing a good job.  The downside is that, much like a school superintendent, the positions is very political and the manager serves at the whim of City Council.

It’s worth thinking about.   Much has changed in Trenton since 1962.  We’ve gone downhill.  Our city’s population has radically changed, the industrial economy has collapsed and the Internet economy has been established.   Not much has changed in Trenton’s government.

Activist like myself and Kevin Moriarty have talked openly about mounting such an effort.  Others have voiced support.  But like the recall, it’s a big effort, especially if our City Council stands in the way of at least considering a change.   We assume they and the current administration will resist even thinking about it.   But that shouldn’t stop the long suffering citizens of Trenton.

Voice your support for the idea of considering a change to our form of government.   Let us know.  From where I sit, it’s much easier to lead if you know you have support.  Better yet, let our City Council know that you want to consider a Faulkner Act change.   A Council action to form the commission will immeasurably simplify the effort by avoiding a costly public referendum.

On Thursday May 5^th, Trenton’s City Council will vote on an administration proposal to sell a bond (i.e. take out a long term loan) to pay a debt to the Internal Revenue Service caused by our payroll company (IPS) having stolen employee payroll taxes.   The amount of money is large, $4.7M so paying for it out of Trenton’s current funds is impractical.

As of this writing neither the public, City Council nor I know the proposed term of the bonds (I assume 15 years),  whether this is all that Trenton will owe (do we owe the State of New Jersey money?), will we recover money from IPS (the thief) or even how did this happen?  The City of Trenton has been stingy on letting taxpayers know what’s happened to their money.   That’s too bad but blogger Kevin Moriarty has done a great job writing about it and actually researching what’s going on.

I’m hopefully calling this a mistake because our administration shouldn’t have been so lax in its supervision of IPS.   It was a mistake to renew IPS’ contract even after the city was warned that IPS hadn’t been paying payroll taxes to the Federal Government.   Kevin’s research is turning up facts that potentially make this worse than a mistake, but for now I’ll chalk this up to plain old bad management in City Hall.

Reinvent Trenton mostly restricts itself to the economic issues and that includes how we use the budget as a policy tool.  So when a proposal (as vague as it seems) gets floated to fund a large $4.7M mistake made by the current administration over the next 15 years, in order for future voters to enjoy paying for a current problem, I take notice.

Responsible money managers know as a basic fundamental tenet that long term debt should only be used to fund long term assets.   We fund new water treatment facilities, new garbage trucks and even new hotels with long term debt (i.e. bonds).    We do that in our personal lives as well, our houses and cars are funded with long term debt, but not our clothes and food.

This $4.7M payment is a current liability and if we don’t have the funds in our budget we have only two responsible options:

1) change our budget by cutting something, or

2) fund it with short term debt (2 years or so) and raise taxes to make the payments.

Funding this mistake should happen during the course of this administration.   Spreading out our pain over 15 years deflects responsibility for this monumental blunder to future Mayors and future generations.   As voters and taxpayers, WE are responsible for this administration and this City Council, therefore we are responsible for the pain that our voting decisions have wrought.

Our decisions about how to budget and fund our operations are important.  They’re important in both matching priorities to our precious tax dollars and they’re also important in matching the benefit (or pain) of an expense to the actual taxpayers who will receive the benefit, or pain.

I know that none or our elected officials want to burden current taxpayers with this $4.7M mistake.  I’m sure that some voters would prefer to kick the cost down the road.   However, we are stewards of the financial health of our city.  Pushing this mistake into the future is both wrong and unfair to future voters.