Lakewood's Voice

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

ELECTION CAMPAIGN FRAUD



Headline Archives

ELECTION FRAUD Don’t Commit a Campaign Crime

12/18/07

Last Friday, a California man named Gladwin Gill admitting to making nearly $67,000 in illegal contributions to several political campaigns from 2003 to 2005, including the elections of the U.S. President, two U.S. Senators, and a U.S. Representative.
Now, following an investigation by our Los Angeles office, he faces up to five years in jail and a potential fine of up to $670,000.
Gill’s crime involved what’s called “conduit contributions.” And with the 2008 election season already heating up, it’s something you should be aware of so that you don’t fall prey to this scheme either at home or at the office.
Here’s how a “conduit contribution” works. Person A wants to give a lot of money to Candidate X. But federal law puts a ceiling on how much one person can contribute to a candidate. To get around the law, Person A goes to Friend B or Employee C or Associate D and says, “Hey, if you give me the money for Candidate X, I’ll pass along your check and then reimburse you out of my own pocket or from corporate funds.” The friend, employee, or associate effectively becomes a “conduit” for the real contributor, thus the name.
In Gill’s case, he solicited donations from employees at his company—and from friends and family members—naming them as the contributors and paying them from corporate funds later.
The law is clear: Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, making campaign contributions in the name of another person or otherwise concealing the true source of the funds is a felony if the contribution exceeds $2,000. In fact, both the person soliciting the contribution and the person who agrees to be reimbursed for it could be investigated. Even if neither is aware of the law.
Don’t let it happen to you. To avoid becoming a “conduit” for these illegal schemes, keep the following in mind:
Don’t agree to be reimbursed for a campaign contribution by anyone else—including your employer. “Making a contribution through your employer isn’t necessarily illegal,” says Special Agent Vikki Medrano from our Los Angeles Division. “However, accepting reimbursement for your contribution is. An offer to reimburse you out of corporate or private funds should raise a red flag.”
Be especially careful at work, where deceptive tactics may be used. For example, your employer may try to make an informal agreement to reimburse you and your fellow employees for campaign contributions, assuring you that the process is both legitimate and routine. Or your employer may take a more aggressive stance, effectively coercing you and your colleagues to make campaign contributions by telling you—either explicitly or implicitly—that there will be negative consequences if you don’t.
Be aware of individual contribution limits. If you’re unsure of what amount you can legally contribute to a political campaign, check the Federal Election Commission's website.
Report any suspected election fraud to the FBI. We have dedicated election-fraud agents in each of our 56 field offices. If you suspect that your employer or any other individual or organization is collecting contributions illegally, contact your local FBI field office.
Resources: - Gill press release - FBI Public Corruption website
Headline Archives home

Accessibility eRulemaking FirstGov Freedom of Information Act Legal Notices Legal Policies and Disclaimers Links Privacy Policy White House
FBI.gov is an official site of the U.S. Federal Government, U.S. Department of Justice.
'

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

THUG ATTACKS LAKEWOOD REBBIE








VOS IZ NEIAS: (Yiddish: "What's News")
The Voice of the New York Orthodox Jewish Community. Today's Neias is Tomorrows News. If you don't see it here, it's not Neias.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Lakewood, NJ - Police Release Sketch of Lakewood Attack Suspect.
Lakewood, NJ - Police have released a composite sketch of the man being sought in the attack on a third-grade Orthodox school teacher Tuesday night.The investigation into the attack of Mordechai Moskowitz, 53, of Lakewood, is being conducted by Lakewood Police Detectives Greg Staffordsmith and Steve Wexler, along with Investigator Carlos Trujillo-Tovar from the Ocean County Prosecutors Office. Police are asking the public to call if they have any information or saw anything out of the ordinary about 8 p.m. Tuesday on Princeton Avenue, Isnardi said.Anyone with information is asked to call the Lakewood Police Detective Bureau at (732) 363-0200 and ask for Wexler at ext. 5344 or Staffordsmith ext. 5341. [app]
posted by Shlomah Shamos @ 10/10/2007 07:45:00 PM

Lakewood police investigate baseball bat attack on Orthodox man
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 10/10/07-BY MARGARET F. BONAFIDE Post Comment
LAKEWOOD — Police are investigating what prompted an apparent unprovoked baseball bat attack which critically injured an Orthodox resident about 8 p.m. Tuesday, said Detective Lt. Joseph Isnardi.


Police Officer Summer Cunliffe responded to the call Tuesday and found a man in his 50s bleeding profusely from the head, in what was an apparent beating with a baseball bat, Isnardi said. The attack happened on Princeton Avenue, between 12th and Carey streets.


Police found a bloodied baseball bat at the scene and it has been taken into evidence, Isnardi said.Isnardi said the man's identity is not being released because he has family members who have not been notified of the attack and he is in critical condition at Jersey Shore University Medical Center.


Hatzollah and Lakewood First Aid responded with paramedics and transported the victim to the trauma unit.Police established a crime scene and Detectives Steve Wexler and Greg StaffordSmith investigated the incident.


Police are asking the public to call if they have any information or saw anything out of the ordinary about that time on Princeton Avenue, Isnardi said."We don't have anything,'' Isnardi said. "The guy was just walking down the street with no hint of a robbery or anything. It is unexplained at this point.''Anyone with any information should call the Lakewood Police Detective Bureau and ask for Wexler or StaffordSmith at (732) 363-0200.

Sunday, September 16, 2007

"U" TURN ON DOUBLE YELLOW
















Monday, September 03, 2007

"U"-TURN ON DOUBLE YELLOW [NJ DOT RULING]

Dear Mr. Shain:

Thank you for your Internet communication requesting information from the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT). I appreciate the opportunity to address your concern.

The description of a double yellow line that is in the MUTCD is as follows:

Two-direction no-passing zone markings consisting of two normal solid yellow lines where crossing the centerline markings for passing is prohibited for traffic traveling in either direction.
The centerline markings on undivided two-way roadways with four or more lanes for moving motor vehicle traffic always available shall be the two-direction no-passing zone markings consisting of two normal solid yellow lines.By definition the double yellow line only prohibits PASSING and not turning.
Unless there is a sign that specifically prohibits making a u-turn or a sign the prohibits either the right or left turn, the pavement markings alone do not prohibit these movements.
I hope you find this information helpful. Again, thank you for taking the time to contact NJDOT.

Sincerely,

Kris Kolluri, Commissioner

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Howell Voters reject Howell Twp School budget- Township forced to cut millions $$$ from Budget, Lakewood cuts only nickel & dime items.

http://tritown.gmnews.com/news/2007/0614/Front_Page/004.html

And now for Lakewood;

SOMETHING FOR NOTHING-Editorial by Joyce Blay-Posted June 13, 2007

Taking a cue from the Lakewood Board of Education, members of the Lakewood Township Committee avoided public comment at the June 7 budget hearing.

In the recent past, members of the board of education often evaded public criticism of their financial management of tax dollars by going back into executive session for hours until members of the public tired of waiting and left. Members of the board of education also asked board attorney Michael Inzelbuch to research legal precedent, at taxpayer expense, that enabled them to refuse to answer comments by members of the public.

Last week, it was the township committee's turn to avoid their constituents.

At the April 26 introduction of the 2007 municipal budget, Mayor Raymond Coles announced that a public hearing of the municipal budget would be held June 7 at 5 p.m. so he could attend his daughter's 8th grade graduation from Holy Family School.

Coles could have telephoned in his vote on the budget or the committee could have scheduled an emergency meeting on a day and time when it was convenient for other residents and township taxpayers to also attend the hearing. Ironically, the day and time convenient for Coles was not convenient for Committeeman Menashe Miller, who did not attend the June 7 meeting and did not call in his vote.

Miller did not return a request for comment the following week.

Last year and this year, committeemen did not vote on a resolution to establish the cost of hiring school budget consultant Frank Marlow, as they did in years past. The change deprived taxpayers and residents of a public forum to discuss the defeated school budget.

Township Attorney Steven Secare told NJ News & Views last year that Marlow was not hired by resolution based on a provision of the state Pay to Play law. Marlow told a reporter he was not a political contributor to any Lakewood candidates or parties.

Committeeman Robert Singer, who is also a state senator, corrected Secare in a May 2007 interview. Singer said the committee's decision not to vote on a resolution to hire Marlow was made under the Open Public Meetings Act. The Open Public Meetings Act permits the governing body to award some professional contracts without putting them out to bid - including the position of township attorney.

In 2006, Lakewood taxpayers paid $366,135.30 for the township's legal services, which were budgeted at $441,534. This year, the township has budgeted $457,410 for legal services provided by Secare and other attorneys hired by the township.

Secare did not request an increase in the $170 per hour fee he is paid under his new contract, which NJ News & Views requested under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA).

Taxpayers will pay a great deal more for the school district's legal services during 2007-8; despite two consecutive school budget defeats last year and this year, members of the board of education voted to approve an increase in the hourly rate billed by board attorney Michael Inzelbuch. Inzelbuch billed taxpayers $175 per hour during the 2006-7 school year. For the new school year, he is billing taxpayers $200 per hour for his services.

On May 9, the board of education held an 8 a.m. meeting to approve the increase in Inzelbuch's contract, which no member of the public attended. One month later, the committee's 5 p.m. budget meeting generated almost as low a turnout.

Seven people attended the June 7 budget hearing: Joanne LaRocca and her adult son, Joe LaRocca; husband and wife John and Pat DeFillipis of Toms River, who own a Lakewood business, and Eileen Faggiola of North Carolina, the sister of Mrs. DeFillipis; Lakewood resident David Drukaroff, who is employed by the township as an Inspections Clerk; and Fairways resident William Hobday.

According to information provided by the township manager's office, total appropriations of $59,988,600.31 in 2006 rose $2.9 million to $62,912,009.05 in 2007.

Total non-tax revenue, including surplus, dropped $1.3 million from $28,971,655.51 in 2006 to $27,642,648.10 in 2007.

The 2006 tax levy of $31,016,934.80 will increase by $4.3 million to $35,269,360.95 in 2007. As a result, the municipal tax rate per $100 of assessed property value will increase by 4.4 cents from the 2006 rate of 41.1 cents to the 2007 rate of 45.5 cents.

The 2007 net valuation taxable is $7,735,617,454.

Township information stated that a property owner with a home assessed at $300,000 would pay $1,365 in municipal taxes in 2007.

Areas of increased expenditures included insurance, utility cost, salaries, pensions, trash disposal costs, debt service, fuel and reserve for uncollected taxes. The township has set aside $5,469,096.70 as reserve for uncollected taxes. The 2007 Municipal Budget Summary of Current Fund Section estimates that 95.65 percent of property taxes will be collected.
Media reports of the April 26 committee meeting, in which the 2007 municipal budget was introduced, quoted Coles referring to the 2006 rate of tax collection as "abnormally" low, requiring a larger tax increase in 2007.

Lakewood Tax Collector Patricia Tomassini told NJ News & Views the following month that the township usually averages a 97-98 percent tax collection rate.

Drukaroff was the first member of the audience to discuss the budget during the June 7 public hearing. He cited an article recently published in the Asbury Park Press that reported Lakewood's rising municipal taxes. Drukaroff commented on public reaction to the report.
Drukaroff also referenced recent contract negotiations involving his union, AFSME Local 3790, which represents township municipal workers.

In an April interview, Drukaroff told NJ News & Views that the rank and file of AFSME Local 3790 ratified the new contract by a vote of 42-14.
The 4-year contract, retroactive to January 1, 2007, gives the union a 3.35 percent salary increase the first year it takes effect. Employees that earn less than $30,000 per year will receive an additional $250 as a one-time payment. In 2008, union members will receive a 3.50 percent raise. Employees earning under $30,000 per year will receive a one-time payment of $225. In 2009, union members will receive a 3.65 percent raise. Employees earning under $30,000 per year will receive a one-time payment of $200. In 2010, union members will receive a 3.75 percent raise. Employees earning under $30,000 per year will receive a one-time payment of $200.

Committeemen discussed the contract during the April 12 committee meeting before voting to approve it by resolution.

Committeeman Charles Cunliffe praised Township Manager Frank Edwards, despite his failure to negotiate a new contract requiring union members to make a monetary contribution toward their health benefits. Cunliffe asserted that such an agreement would have enabled the township to reduce the escalating cost of health insurance, which the state had requested the committee try to cap.

Cunliffe voted not to approve the contract. Deputy Mayor Marc (Meir) Lichtenstein said he was reluctantly voting yes. Mayor Raymond Coles and Committee Menashe Miller also voted yes. Committeeman Robert Singer was absent from the meeting.

Drukaroff told NJ News & Views why his union refused to pay anything towards their health benefits. He said union negotiators said during negotiations that their membership would only consider contributing toward health and dental benefits if management and elected officials did the same.

"Of course, they lost interest after that," Drukaroff said.
According to the township manager's office, part-time salaries of committeemen will increase from $19,710 in 2006 to $21,538 in 2007. The 2006 mayor's salary of $22,210 will increase to $23,098 in 2007. However, committeemen's health benefit packages double the cost of most of those salaries.

Chief Financial Officer William Riker told NJ News & Views on June 12 that the township pays $2,050 per month and $24,600 per year for Lichtenstein's health benefits.

Lichtenstein is self-employed as a principal of MSL Management, a firm he co-owns with his wife, Sara.
Riker said the township pays $1,818 per month and $21,816 per year for Committeeman Menashe Miller's health benefits.
Miller is employed as a United States Air Force chaplain.
Riker said the township pays the same amount for health benefits for Committeeman Robert Singer and Mayor Raymond Coles. Each man receives health benefits that cost $2,048 per month and $24,576 per year.

Coles is self-employed as a co-owner of Tek-Net, a company that repairs medical equipment.
Singer is state senator. He is also employed as a vice president of Kimball Medical Center.
Committeeman Charles Cunliffe, employed as a refrigeration products sales engineer for Sporlan Valve Co. of St. Louis, Missouri, generates the lowest cost in health care benefits. Riker said the township pays $135 per month and $1,620 per year for his health insurance.

During the June 7 budget hearing, Drukaroff suggested the township committee form an advisory committee to recommend technology that would provide more efficient methods of delivering municipal services if the cost of labor was too expensive. The following week, Drukaroff told NJ News & Views he did not think an advisory committee's recommendations would result in lower municipal taxes. He said that even if the township utilized technology in place of employees, the cost of other services would continue to increase. Drukaroff said taxpayers expecting to see their tax bills go down were unrealistic in their expectations.
"You can't get something for nothing," Drukaroff said on June 7.

Joanne LaRocca, the next speaker, disagreed. She said other property owners were receiving lower tax bills through abatements she was too late to apply for due to illness.
"I am a property tax payer," she said. "I've never objected to my taxes. (However), I heard I could file for an abatement, (but) was told I was too late."

Committeemen and Secare corrected LaRocca and her son, who also referred to property tax assessment appeals as abatements.

All Lakewood property owners are entitled to appeal their tax assessment each year. The 2007 deadline for filing an appeal was April 1, according to the Lakewood Tax Assessor's Office.
LaRocca blamed developers for the revaluation that was completed in January 2006, but was not reflected in some property owners' increased taxes until July 2006.

Municipal and county officials have said in past interviews that both new construction and the passage of time create the need to reassess property values so that each property owner is paying his or her fair share of taxes.

Abatement programs approved by the township committee provide graduated exemptions on new construction of commercial property. The abatements reduce the tax obligations of commercial property owners over a 5-year schedule.

The first year of the abatement, the property owner is not liable for payment of any property taxes on the building, but must pay all property taxes owed on the land. Each successive year of the abatement, the building is taxed at an additional 20 percent of the total taxes owed. After the fifth year of the abatement, the property owner begins paying 100 percent of local taxes owed on the building as well as the land.

Riker told a reporter that 25 commercial properties were receiving a tax abatement in 2007, according to information provided by Tax Assessor Linda Solakian. The cost to taxpayers is reflected in the 2007 municipal budget.

In 2006, abatements that were not broken out by tax abatement year generated a total of $384,041.71 in miscellaneous revenues. The amount was greater than the anticipated 2006 tax abatement revenues of $323,408.29. In 2007, the township anticipates $324,344.96 in tax abated revenues.

Tax revenue that is lost to township coffers through the abatement program could be estimated at several times that amount, depending on whether the property owner is in the second, third, fourth or fifth year of the abatement schedule.

Under provisions of the state Constitution, the state Department of Community Affairs (DCA) permits qualified municipalities to grant tax abatement of real property taxes for new construction. In 1971, Lakewood adopted a revised ordinance permitting tax abatements.
Riker disputed previous assertions by some township officials who have said in past interviews that only commercial properties are eligible to apply for a tax abatement. Whether residential or commercial property owners receive the abatements, the township can no longer afford to give them away.

At the June 7 committee meeting, committeemen approved on second reading an ordinance granting a tax abatement to SES Holdings LLC. During a public hearing on the ordinance, resident Joe LaRocca asked the committee who had applied for the tax abatement. Coles said that to his knowledge, Commerce Bank owned the property.
Township documents state otherwise.

On June 8, NJ News & Views made an OPRA request to view abatement documents for the 3,700-square-foot masonry building that will be used as a bank. Among the papers were short-term and long-term lease agreements signed in 2006 between Commerce Bank, which will be the tenant, and developers Samantha Weitzen, Elihu Weinstein, and Simcha Shain, then a member of the Lakewood Board of Education.

Shain and Weinstein are investors and developers of many other commercial and residential properties in town that are either already built or approved for construction. Last month, Shain received a continuance of a tax abatement on a property the previous owner was still receiving at the time of sale.

Tax abatements are corporate welfare the township can no longer afford to give away, especially with a reduced number of property owners paying their taxes. The committee enacted a tax abatement program to stimulate needed urban renewal in Lakewood back in 1971.
Times change.

Giving away something for nothing will no longer stimulate business in Lakewood. Despite the incentives of the township Urban Enterprise Zone program (UEZ), businesses are leaving Lakewood. Last year, Walgreen's and Community Surgical moved out of their storefronts in Seagull Square, a shopping center owned by investors Shain and Weinstein. The businesses moved to a new location less than a mile away in Toms River.

Under terms of a 2001 contract, the committee gave a 35 year tax exemption to the Cedarbridge Urban Renewal Development Corporation (CDC), the construction division of Beth Medrash Govoha, a non-profit rabbinical college. The CDC was contracted to build 100,000 square feet of office space per year in a 201-acre corporate park located in the UEZ. To date, the CDC has built nothing in the corporate park other than roads. Those roads lead nowhere.
Last month, Tax Collector Patricia Tomassini told NJ News & Views that Lakewood has a higher number of tax exempt properties than many area townships. Giving away tax abatements only makes the problem worse and her job that much harder.

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

CRIME AND NO PUNISHMENT IN LAKEWOOD

Editorial by Joyce Blay- Posted October 15, 2006

Half a year ago, the first story posted on NJ News & Views reported that a Lakewood developer was building an addition to his office on township land and that the township was doing nothing about it.

Nothing has changed since March.

Developer Raphael (Ralph) Zucker, whose 2-story office/retail building is located at 911 East County Line Road, is still building an addition on the former location of Twin Oaks Drive.

It is nearly completed.

In 2002, the Lakewood Planning Board approved another developer's application to move Twin Oaks Drive, which is a township roadway off East County Line Road.

The planning board dedicated the triangular portion where Twin Oaks Drive was formerly located as deed-restricted, green open space. The land was and still is owned by the township, according to information available in the Office of the Lakewood Tax Assessor.

After the road was moved, residents told NJ News & Views that Zucker paved it over and used it as a parking lot.

In 2004, Zucker applied to the township for permission to construct a building addition on the land. One of the documents Zucker submitted with the application indicated he was the owner of the township land, even though he told NJ News & Views in March he was not.

Township employees in both zoning and planning said applicants are not asked to provide documents proving ownership when applying to be heard by either board.

On a tape of the September 28 committee meeting, resident Gerri Ballwanz said she had researched ownership of the property and that the deed stated it belonged to the township.

"Evidently, you are the owner of this property," Ballwanz told committeemen.

Township Attorney Steven Secare responded to her comment.

"I'm in negotiations with the builder's attorney on a price," Secare told her.

Secare said he was not going to bore Ballwanz with details of the negotiations, even though Ballwanz said she wanted to hear them. Secare referred to the township, which is the current owner of the land, as the prior owner. He also said that Zucker had not offered an acceptable price for the land, but did not disclose the offer price.

"I have threatened them with quiet title action," Secare told Ballwanz.

Wikipedia, an Internet encyclopedia, defines quiet title action as a lawsuit filed in a court having jurisdiction over land disputes. The complaint is based on the assumption that title to the property is ambiguous. Wikipedia lists fraudulent conveyance as one such basis for a complaint.

If Zucker unknowingly paid a third party for township land, a quiet title action might be appropriate. However, Zucker knowingly took possession of public land and did not pay the township a dime for it. Worse, he asked the township for permission to build on public land and public officials granted his request.

A reporter for NJ News & Views contacted Secare several days after the meeting. The reporter left a message for Secare asking if the township intended to file a criminal complaint against Zucker, who filed a false statement of ownership with the zoning board in 2004.

Secare did not return the reporter's call.

The reporter contacted Deputy Mayor Raymond Coles over a week ago to ask the committeeman the same question. The reporter also asked why the governing body would entertain the sale of open space township land without first discussing it in public.

"We're involved with negotiations (to sell township land) all the time," Coles said. "We have our professionals look at it all the time. If we can put it back on the tax rolls, that's what we try to do."

Coles said the committee, not the planning board, was the only governing body that could encumber township property. He did not remember the committee designating any township land for open space in recent years.

None of the ordinances the committee passed in 2002 and 2003 dedicated the former portion of Twin Oaks Drive for open space.

Coles said that if the zoning board did not verify ownership of the land on which Zucker applied to build the addition to his office, it was not intentional.

"Somebody in the zoning office screwed up by not checking the information," Coles said. "If somebody made a mistake, we need to rectify it. If somebody did something criminal (they have to be prosecuted)."

When asked when that would happen, Coles defended Zucker.

"I'm sure since it's Ralph Zucker, everyone is upset by it," Coles said. "If it were anyone else other than an Orthodox, it would be all right."

According to planning board meeting minutes from 2002, it was Orthodox residents of The Villas, a development Zucker built behind his office, who requested that the former location of Twin Oaks Drive be dedicated to open space.

New homes in The Villas are advertised at a starting price of more than half a million dollars each.

Coles compared Zucker's taking of public land to expand his building with the recent discovery that a predominantly black cemetery had accidentally buried its dead on adjacent township land.

Husband and wife Moses and Minna Shvarzblat, who own a furniture store on Clifton Avenue and a furniture warehouse next to Greenwood Cemetery, which fronts Cedar Bridge Avenue, are building a luxury residential and commercial development on the former township land.

"When they started clearing the land, they found the cemetery had over-expanded," Coles said. "They didn't tell the cemetery to remove bodies. No one is upset about the dead (being buried on township property), but because someone built on a township road, they're upset."

Ballwanz is not just upset. She told Secare at the committee meeting she wanted Zucker punished for his actions.

"I hope there will be fines and the price will be quite hefty," Ballwanz said on the tape. "For (Zucker) to thumb his nose at us is outrageous."

NJ News & Views agrees.

Committeemen Marc (Meir) Lichtenstein, this year's Mayor of Lakewood, and Menashe Miller are running for re-election. Miller, a Republican, is a member of the planning board. Lichtenstein's Democratic running mate, Michael Sernotti, is chairman of the zoning board.

None of the candidates have spoken out against Zucker's deception. No complaint was filed with the county prosecutor's office.

Public officials share the guilt of those they permit to break the law.

A VERY UNPUBLIC DISCUSSION OF LAKEWOOD'S MASTER PLAN

Editorial by Joyce Blay- Posted October 3, 2006

It has been a week since a mayor's advisory committee presented its' recommendations to update Lakewood's Master Plan, but residents still can't read them on the township Web site.

The recommendations were presented at the September 26 meeting of the Lakewood Planning Board.

No public forum was held.

At the end of the meeting, members of the advisory committee and the planning board agreed to post the recommendations as a .PDF document on the Lakewood Township Web site.

As of October 3, the document had still not been posted.

On October 24 at 6 p.m., the planning board will hold a public hearing on the advisory committee's recommendations. That date is now three weeks away instead of one month.

There was no time left at all to let residents know that one of the advisory committee's recommendations to update the Master Plan was scheduled to be discussed by the Lakewood Development Corporation (LDC) at its' October 3 meeting.

In the 79-page draft document provided at the planning board meeting to NJ News & Views, but not the public, the advisory committee recommended that the former Jamesway on Route 9 north be improved as a gateway to Lakewood. In July, LDC Executive Director Russell Corby shelved the same proposal following board and public opposition.

One week after the advisory committee recommended that the project be incorporated into the town's Master Plan, the LDC agenda included the item for discussion.

LDC board members Mitch Dolobowsky, Michael D'Elia, James Waters, Abraham Muller, Rabbi Moshe Zev Weisberg and Ada Gonzalez voted to ask the township committee to have the planning board assess improvement of the Jamesway and other privately-owned properties in the area. LDC board member Lynn Celli voted no.

A quorum was established a half hour after the scheduled meeting time.

Dolobowsky is a member of the planning board, but did not abstain from voting.

Dolobowsky had other conflicts of interest, as did Weisberg and Gonzalez, who did not abstain either.

Weisberg is chairman of the LDC board. He is also Director of the Community Services Corporation, which is funded through the LDC Job Link program, and Gonzalez is his employee.

Last month, the state renewed Job Link funding after LDC Executive Director Russell Corby submitted a corrective action plan that was supposed to address Weisberg's conflicts of interest.

Weisberg and Dolobowsky are both members of the advisory committee. So is Rabbi Aaron Kotler, Director of Beth Medrash Govoha, a Lakewood rabbinical college that has owned the Jamesway since purchasing it in 2000.

Kotler did not file the required financial disclosure as a member of the advisory committee.

Weisberg and Kotler are also members of a political interest group, the Vaad. The Vaad's endorsements usually determine which candidate gets elected to public office in Lakewood.

It is a conflict of interest for Weisberg, a member of a political interest group, or Gonzalez, his employee, to ask committeemen that rely on the Vaad's endorsement to refer a pork barrel project for assessment by another government board on which Dolobowsky is a member. All three should have abstained on the LDC vote, but did not.

In February, LDC board members approved an expenditure of $35,200 for the professional assessment to improve private property with public funds. Now Corby wants the planning board to reassess the project at further public expense.

Waters told NJ News & Views on October 5 that he was unaware the planning board was considering a Master Plan recommendation to improve the Jamesway area before voting with the majority on the LDC.

Not only has the township failed to provide the public with timely information critical to their participation in government, the process by which the information was formulated was flawed.

According to NJSA 40A:9-22.3e, all members of the advisory committee are required to file a financial disclosure. A spokesman for the state Department of Community Affairs said that individuals who failed to file the disclosure could be subject to fines or disciplinary action if a complaint of ethics violation is filed against them. While some advisory committee members have filed financial disclosures in accordance with other public positions they hold, the rest have not.

The Master Plan provides a blueprint for the direction that residents would like to see the town developed over the next six years. That direction should also include the concerns of residents that do not have a voice on the Master Plan Advisory Committee, which met in closed session in a public building.

Residents that attended the last meeting said they were asked to leave, but refused. Residents also said that some members of the advisory committee were not the persons appointed to the panel. Residents said no attendance was taken at the meetings either.

Benjamin Heinemann, the head of the Vaad, was one of the presenters at the planning board meeting last month.

Heinemann did not file a financial disclosure as a member of the advisory committee.

Heinemann said members were unanimous in their vote for 33 of the 37 recommendations. How can he say that with certainty if no attendance was taken and all members appointed to the advisory committee did not attend all meetings?

A better way of disseminating the advisory committee's recommendations would have been in public meetings that included a public forum. The planning board secretary is a member of the advisory committee and should have been asked to take meeting minutes that would be available to the public as well.

Meetings could and should have been broadcast on the town's public access cable television station and also Webcast over the Internet. There is no excuse for shutting out the public from a public discussion.

Heinemann said that advisory committee discussions were held over a period of nine months. That time period is not long enough if the process that led to the recommendations was flawed or biased. The appointed members of the advisory committee should return to the drawing board or the township could be returning to court.
note: Meir Hertz was appointed by the curren Mayor (Meir Lichtenstein) yehuda Shain

Friday, September 08, 2006

CORRUPTION AGAIN-LAKEWOOD MASTER PLAN COMMITTEE

BY JOHN VANDIVER
TOMS RIVER BUREAU

LAKEWOOD — Property owners in a largely undeveloped southwest section of the township learned recently that they can build much more on their land than was allowed just a few years ago.

Thus, the phone calls from property owners — some angry, some sensing an opportunity to cash in — have been pouring in all week to the office of Township Committeeman Charles Cunliffe.

"It's been nonstop," said Cunliffe.

But it's also all a big mistake, he said Thursday.

When the Township Committee voted about a year ago to approve a new zoning map, there was a mix-up, Cunliffe said.

The area off Cross Street near the Jackson boundary, a more rural part of town, had been zoned to require 2-acre building lots. The new zoning reduced the minimum lot size to 1 acre. The result: Land value there has more than doubled, Cunliffe said.

"I've been asking the committee to fix it. I was personally assured by the mayor it would be corrected during the master plan revision. It's a huge chunk of land," Cunliffe said.

Now it seems the Master Plan Advisory Committee is poised to recommend the less restrictive zoning that never should have been allowed in the first place, Cunliffe said.

Conflicts of interest?


During the Township Committee meeting Thursday night, Cunliffe said some advisory committee members stand to gain if the zoning is retained. He then called on members of the advisory group to disclose all their financial ties and conflicts connected to the area. "These people are major landowners and developers. That's a conflict of interest," said Cunliffe, talking before the meeting.

He declined to identify which of the advisory committee's 28 members, appointed by the Township Committee, may have a conflict.

"You assume people are going to do the right thing," Cunliffe said.

The zoning mix-up came about because the color-coded zoning map included the change in lot sizes but that change was omitted from the text of the proposal, according to Planning Board Administrator Kevin Kielt.

The omission of the change from the text was the reason the change was inadvertently approved, Cunliffe said.

However, Cunliffe blamed private firms hired to draft the master plan for the omission, and said he believes the mistake was intentional, though he declined to name whom he believes were involved.

"People will assume incorrectly we (Township Committee) were part of the scheme," said Cunliffe.

More than 30 property owners are affected by the mistake, Cunliffe estimated.

Pros, cons


About half the telephone calls Cunliffe has received in the past week have been from people urging him to support the more lucrative zoning, he said. The other half are fearful of overdevelopment.

Bill Hobday, an advisory committee member, expressed concern during the Township Committee meeting about the conduct of some of the volunteer advisers. Hobday said information about the advisory committee's meetings had been leaked to residents in the area, violating the panel's policy to keep its deliberations confidential.

"It's something that must be addressed," Hobday told Township Committee members.

The advisory committee makes its recommendations to the Planning Board, which has the authority to approve the plan. But zoning changes must be approved by the Township Committee.

When the advisory committee met Wednesday, the atmosphere was tense, according to Hobday. "It was not one of our nicest committee meetings," he said.

Cunliffe said the township committee learned of its mistake soon after approving the zoning changes last year but opted against amending the plan immediately. It would be easier and more economical to fix the problem during the master plan revision process, which is now nearing its conclusion, members determined.

Every six years, municipalities are required to update their master plans, which function as road maps to guide development.

The advisory committee responsible for drafting the 2006 master plan has been meeting since April. The group has various subcommittees examining different aspects of the plan, from downtown issues to educational matters and potential rezonings.

The advisory committee meets again Sept. 20. The master plan could be considered by the Planning Board as early as Sept. 26 with a public hearing to be held soon after.

In the end, it is the township committee which has the final say on rezoning matters.

"I know where my vote is," Cunliffe said.

John Vandiver: (732) 557-5739 or jvandiver@app.com

Monday, July 31, 2006

MID-STATE ABSTRACT CO (title) INSURANCE POSSIBLE "CONFLICT OF INTEREST??

NOTE: TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS IN LAKEWOOD TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY. IF YOU ARE IN NEED OF "TITLE-INSURANC" OR OTHERE TITLE WORK, YOU SHOULD BE AWARE THAT THE "MID-STATE" TITLE CO IS OWNED THE FAMILY OF THE LAKEWOOD TAX ASSESSOR AND MAY BE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

TAX COURT APPEALS

TAX COURT APPEALS
NOTE: In Tax Court appeals all 1-4 family properties are defined as “Small-Claims”.
In “small-claims” cases the discovery or “Interrogatories” from the Municipality to the tax-payer are very limited in scope.
Rule 8:6-1 (a) 5 state “shall be limited to
1- inspection of subject premises,
2- a closing statement, if within 3 years of assign date,
3- cost of improvements if within 3 years,
4- income & expense of income producing property”

The Municipality is NOT entitled to anything else without a Court order.
 
web site visitor counter
Hotwire Coupon