May 27 #2

I am re posting this yesterday's blog since some how it appeared way after two filler blogs. Perhaps some did not scroll far enough down since There was "Dan's " guide to indicate its presence. The unanswered questions are of importance in the coming elections

1-Whether the police arrested 7 (the Courier) or 20 (Star Ledger) individuals yesterday as a result of the shooting spree is immaterial. The point is why were there at least 20 outstanding warrants for presumably Plainfield residents that had not been served. I am sure there must be 100s more all for "minor" offenses. It appears that there is no desire or capability to incarcerate known gang members who have been picked up for possession or intent to sell. The most likely reason is that there is not enough evidence to obtain a conviction.

Public Safety Director Hellwig has been quoted on the positive actions the Police Department is taking. Certainly the limiting access to some of the "projects" which have become known havens of drug activity is a positive step, as is the increased police presence in the 4th ward.

But what is the role or need for the Mobile Command Unit in crime prevention? According to the United States Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 6.0 square miles. No part of the city is more than at the most 2 miles from the centrally located headquarters. Is this Mobile vehicle designed for emergency situations just a haven for duty officers? Or is an expensive luxury? Its presence by itself can not be a deterrent.

The establishment of a dedicated street crime unit is a belated admission to facts. This is a result of this years reorganization to an "ideal" TO from the previous answer to all of the city's needs.

2-In the past few days there has been in various blogs questions raised about the city's administration and finances. I have reproduced excerpts from some because of unanswered questions.

"An interesting resolution came up at the past City Council Meeting (May 10, 2010) that deserves some closer observation. The resolution was for authorizing a contract between the city and the firm Remington and Vernick in the amount of $88,725 for engineering services connected with reconstructing Watchung Avenue from E. Seventh Street to Kensington Avenue. According to my odometer this is a distance of approximately 1/3 mile.

I only know roughly what engineers earn per year, but this dollar amount seems close to their typical yearly salaries. Perhaps they earn a bit more. So it seems to me that Plainfield should be getting the dedicated services of one engineer, eight hours a day, five days a week, for nearly a year. It appears that this amount of engineer time greatly exceeds what is required for the project. Reconstructing streets is pretty routine stuff; it’s not the kind of work that challenges NASA engineers. The street is already there, the technology is already there, and the distance to be reconstructed is rather short". (Piv for Plainfield 5/25/10)

"Wynn also alleged that a recent council decision to restore salary funding to the city's Planning Division and cut funding to his staff was "absolutely'' motivated at least in part by race . Robinson-Briggs in her preliminary budget proposed to outsource some of that division's responsibilities to a private firm, eliminating several employees, but the council insisted that the city retain a strong in-house planning staff". (Dpotpourri 2/18/10) See May 27 #1

On Jan 15, 2010 both the Mayor and the City Clerk signed the Memorandum of Understanding with the State binding the City to its terms. Now the Council like Congress is going to post facto give permission! Please note, once again I am not questioning the legality of the Mayor's and Clerk's action, but that is worth consideration. Or is it back to ye old rubber stamps?. (potpourri 2/2/10)

On April 5, a proposed resolution was titled, "Authorize approval for the emergency procurement for demolition services in excess of $21,000." The actual amount being authorized turned out to be up to $200,000, which will be a debit in the FY 2011 budget year that starts July 1. It is hard to believe two months later that the demolition, disposal and site remediation costs will come in under $200,000. The engineering firm of Remington & Vernick also monitored the demolition process for a number of billable hours. (Plaintalker II, 5/26/10)

"One of the shortest agenda setting sessions on record highlighted by Mapp's charges of irregularities in the City-UCIA-Dornoch transactions. Plaintalker late last night posted a concise review of the "Monarch" issues.
Although Councilor Mapp noted that the Mayor had never executed certain documents that Council resolutions required, Corporation Counsel Williamson in reviewing some old resolutions opined that everything was legal. He also noted that the "Monarch Property" was not part of the master redevelopment plan. This will require further explanation by Administration." (dpotpourri 10/5/09) To this date there has been no explanation.

What has happened to the withdrawn Resolution several months ago presented by Administration to pay Dornoch over $250,000.00 for finishing the Senior Center Space? Has the money been allocated without Council approval? There never was a report back on the "executive committee meeting about this matter.