Opposition to Municipal Consolidation

[Jay T.]

Dan Mulligan and I wrote the following letter that appeared in today's Cranbury Press challenging Trenton's efforts on forced consolidation and a couple of recent editorials that appeared in the paper. Please note that the Dispatches column to which we are responding is not unique to the Cranbury Press. It is a Princeton Packet column that appears in their papers and the Cranbury Press is required to contain it. So the view of the Cranbury Press staff is not necessarily that of the Dispatches column. I wanted to state this upfront so this thread does not become a statement on the Cranbury Press.

To the editor:

Oxford Economics Professor Thiess Buettner proved in his paper, “Determinants of Tax Rates in Local Capital Income Taxation: A Theoretical Model and Evidence from Germany”  that municipal consolidation is a driver of higher property taxes connecting the rise in property tax rates with the increase in population.  
 
However, the last two editions of the Cranbury Press contained editorials supporting forced municipal consolidation in N.J. as a means to property tax reduction. We feel it is important to respond as we strongly oppose forced consolidation and believe that this is far from the panacea for property taxes that many would have us believe.
 
The basic premise of the editorials is that reducing the number of small towns through consolidation reduces property taxes and the potential for corruption.  If that were accurate then our largest cities would be models of efficiency (Newark, Hoboken, Camden, Trenton, Paterson, Jersey City, Elizabeth) and their officials models of good governance. There would be no need for the over 150 million in state aid currently going to these cities. In actuality as opposed to theory, these cities spend twice as much on a per capita basis for services than the towns targeted for consolidation; towns like Cranbury.
 
In advocating consolidation, there is no mention that a significant portion of municipal spending is outside the local towns’ control, but rather proponents make it appear that spending is a decision of purely local government.  The representatives in Trenton continue to implement mandates with careless disregard for whether there is a local requirement; rather they base decisions on personal or political agendas.  If advocates for consolidation were concerned about property taxes their primary focus would be these regulations which range from mandatory state reporting and permitting to state required training programs to funding of local services.  They’d question the provision and control process for providing state aid to the larger municipalities in our state at the expense of the tax payers. 
 
Extending beyond the financial aspects, the editorials highlight the need for consolidation as a means to reduce corruption.  On this point the facts run counter to the argument.  By definition consolidation creates larger entities who through their own nature provide less transparency and increase the opportunities for corruption and political influence.  The public officials charged in the most recent corruption case were either representatives in Trenton or represented towns/cities that would have been exempt from consolidation.  Research on political corruption cases in N.J. finds that towns with under 10,000 residents are rarely involved in corruption with contributing factors being higher accountability and visibility.
 
The pro-consolidation groups also fail to consider that consolidation undermines individual choice in terms of how and why residents select particular towns in which to live.  The two most common reasons we hear people say they moved to Cranbury are the town’s character and the school district.  Under a consolidation plan, our character which is derived from being a small community is dissolved along with the likely result being a decline in our school’s top level status.
 
The true solution for reform is for towns to explore voluntary shared services agreements and to work on reducing the number of unfunded mandates from Trenton.

Sincerely,

Jay Taylor and Dan Mulligan

[Guest]

Wow, the Cranbury Press is at it again. They seem to consistently thrive on the notion of representing values and positions absolutely at odds with the welfare of their home community. What a shame.

Your editorial is exactly correct. The same premise applies on the school issue as well. The theory is that consolidating our schools with larger districts would save on property taxes but they have never shown a single point of proof for that idea relying entirely on the presumtive logic of it. On the other hand, the facts show we almost entirely self-support our local school AND subsidize other State schools and that the school systems requiring the most subsidization are the largest districts.

This entire concept of consolidation runs contrary to all the available facts. Its too bad the Cranbury Press apparently isn't interested in actual facts preferring a political agenda.

[Guest]

Has anyone seen an article posted by Cranbury Press staff that opposes municipal consolidation?

[Guest]

The former editor Hank Kalet writes the dispatches column and his political leanings are left of Corzine. He took the editorials in the paper out of where it should be local and in so doing destroyed the market for the Cranbury Press. He should be writing for the Times or Ledger which has a market suitable for his writing. I wish that column did not exist because it takes away from local issues. Plus, I wish the Packet would realize that if they print articles against a reader's interest than naturally the residents will not support the paper and revenue falls. It's quite simple give the people what they want and they will buy it.

However, there is a new editorial staff in place less than a year and they have not stated a position in the paper for or against. So I think it is fair to give them a chance. They have allowed letters from Jay, Dan and David to be printed and not withheld so I do think this staff seems to be trying to be fair. Although, a lot of damage was done by previous staffs-see above. However, let's not let this thread turn into a referendum on the Press.

[Guest]

Does Kaley still hold some position of responsibility over the Press as part of his broader role?

In any event, they are publishing these positions as an official editorial from the staff of the Princeton Packet, parent of the Cranbury Press, so it seems like by association we as Cranburians are still forced to have a local paper that spews political points of view, completely devoid of facts, that are contrary to the interests of our entire community. It's not like his opinion is even serving a minority of our community -- it serves no one, but the state political machine and unions that want consolidation because it makes it easier for them to control our budgets.

[Guest]

Well, if one read's Kalet's blog you can see he is openly supportive of Corzine and so his editorials would logically follow his beliefs and support which go against our interest.

The problem is that the Princeton Packet management is not the local editorial staff and the upper management are either clueless as to the damage caused or simply like the other papers don't care care about Cranbury, Monroe or Jamesburg so in their "We own the paper and I don't care attitude" we get editorials going against our local interests.

Unfortunately, the Packet can't have it both ways. If you alienate the readers you have to understand you'll lose business. They compound the problem by reducing staff and stories as a result. All that does is further alienate readers and cause more cancelations. If you take on one side you need to make up for it on the other in order to keep revenue coming in.

If you feel you want to publish stories against the public interest then go ahead and if you reduce staff go ahead, but then don't blame the numbers on the web, the economy or elsewhere. The Press has a captive audience because the Trenton Times and Home News do not cover our town.

The easy solution is to cease printing these editorials, but then one says it's violating their rights. So perhaps it is rights vs profit.

[Homer]

"Dispatches" should be called "Disparages" to reflect its antogonizing point of view. Hank's column does a diservice to our community and has left me disinterested in the Cranbury Press. I am disappointed and, as many others before me have done, I will probably discontinue my subscription in the hopes that Hank's column will disappear.

[HistoricallyFiscal]

Hank has moved on to the digital media (centraljersey.com), he's online editor of princeton packet also. As with all newspapers nowadays, they are loosing advertising revenue and relevance, as online blogs, and forums like this one, are more representative of the local news and community. Local information is more current and relevant (with the ocassional flamer) and the forum fosters a more 2way discussion between the community, then any Editorial on the CP. Though I do read Hank's posts here, its good to see the complete view and discussions from both sides on the Cranbury Forum, and not just his filtered view of our township. Long Live the Cranbury Forum, becuase I dont see the CP lasting for to much longer, if the LA Times, Baltimore Sun and Chicago Tribune are any indication of how hard newspapers have it these days. Good luck hank at CentralJersey.com, it was a smart move on your part to go digital news route.

[HistoricallyFiscal]

Hank has moved on to the digital media (centraljersey.com), he's online editor of Princeton packet also. As with all newspapers nowadays, they are loosing advertising revenue and relevance, as online blogs, and forums like this one, are more representative of the local news and community. Local information is more current and relevant (with the occasional flamer) and the forum fosters a more 2way discussion between the community, then any Editorial on the CP. Though I do read Hank's posts here, its good to see the complete view and discussions from both sides on the Cranbury Forum, and not just his filtered view. Long Live the Cranbury Forum, because I dont see the CP lasting for too much longer, if the NYT and WSJ are any indication of how hard newspapers have it these days.

[HistoricallFiscal]

Of course the editor does spell check those articles, its one big bonus over typing a reply in your iPhone here

[Guest]

NY Post:

"Like New York, Jersey remains one of the country's worst governed states, where government has proven effective mostly at protecting its own interests. If there's an issue for voters nationwide in Jersey's race, it's whether the nation is in for the same fate as the federal government expands sharply.

It would be easy to dismiss what has happened in Jersey as a function of the state's long history of political corruption. Last month's indictment of 44 people, including two state legislators and three mayors, on bribery and influence-peddling charges was another reminder of this sordid reputation. GOP gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie himself prosecuted more than 130 public officials when he was US attorney for the state.

But the ineptitude and inadequacy of Jersey government goes beyond corruption among a few dozen local officials. It permeates the state, including Trenton. Last year, Governing Magazine, the bible of good-government types, ranked Jersey's government the third worst-managed in the country.

The state budget is a mess, the magazine noted, its infrastructure is falling apart, government has poor training and development programs for state workers -- and even the technology systems for governing the state are poor. All in a state with one of the highest percentages of college-educated adults nationally.

Jersey is an object lesson in how big government can come to care more about feeding itself than taking care of basics. A suburban state where cars and roads are crucial, it has the country's worst-rated roads, according to the Reason Foundation's transportation project. It's no mystery: Jersey's politicians have squandered the state's transportation fund and neglected investment in roads."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08182009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/jerseys_true_test_185113.htm

[Guest]

[Jersey Dad]

[Guest]

I can't speak to the letter, but what I saw was that the towns highlighted cannot exist without massive state aid and their size is such that they are inefficient. The other towns WW, Cherry Hill and Wayne have higher property taxes, but their residents could support them without state aid. WW level of state aid is quite low at the moment compared to size. Cranbury if the state said no more aid is receiving so little now that we could be self sustaining.