Fall 2004 Edition          

Letters to The Editor: Revaluation and Pay to Play Revaluation? After reading articles (seemingly everyday) about higher taxes and reassessment of towns, it got me wondering --- Is Fair Lawn due for a tax re-evaluation any time in the near future?  The last one was in 1995.  Are they every 10 years???  YIKES!!!!!!!!! Many thanks for anything you can offer about this! Regards, Sue Northrop   From the Editor:  That was a very timely question.  According to Patty Soules of the Borough of Fair Lawn's Tax Assessor's Office, a 'revaluation process' will begin next year.  Every single residential and commercial property will be re-assessed.  Someone will knock on your door and ask to look around your home.   You don't have to let them in, although Ms. Soules says "you are better off, if you do".   In 2006, you will receive a letter, telling you how much your property is worth (your assessment).  But, just because the value of your home went up, it doesn't mean that your taxes are going up.  Read more about this topic in future editions of Fair Lawn News.   Pay to Play As I sat through the last borough council meeting in Fair Lawn the “pay to play” debate reared up again. A resident asked one of our deputy mayors to return the $2,200 contribution he received from Charles Kushner. Kushner, as you may know, is in a lot of trouble with the law these days. The deputy mayor refused to return the money. It brought me back two years when I was running for the town council and questioned the deputy mayor why Charles Kushner was giving him $2,200. I even used The Records “Paying for Power” article as a prop. He never answered that question. I wondered why a developer who lives and works in central New Jersey had any interest in the Fair Lawn borough council, let alone a maximum contribution interest. I thought then that it was a “pay to play” issue and my thinking has not changed. You see if Kushner were a friend, I would think that friendship would have been defended at the council meeting. It seems the deputy mayor, like many Democrats who accepted his money, is in a bit of a pickle. My interest in this is more that the average person. I lived through it and interestingly enough am contemplating living through it again. You see, the deputy mayor outspent me by over 4 to 1 in our race in 2002. His money came mostly from large donations from people with no interest in Fair Lawn including Mr. Kushner. In 2005 the mayor / freeholder is up for reelection and has county resources and power to “raise money” from.  It is the absolute truth that money is a major factor in who wins local elections. It is used for information and mis-information. If you tell the casual voter enough times how good you are and how bad the other guy is, most people believe it, especially if the opposition does not have the money to counter the claims. “Pay to play” suggests that these folks whose only interest is gaining consulting and contracting dollars from the town backs the front running horse in hopes of a quid pro quo. I may have stumbled upon a way to stop “pay to play”. What if pay to play were mandatory? Residents pay permits and fees for everything under the sun these days. Why not make contractors, consultants and professionals buy a permit? You see a contractor would be barred from doing any work in a municipality, county or even the state unless they made a political contribution. What’s the rub? That contribution would be equal to all sides. $100 to Republicans, $100 to Democrats and $100 to Independents. You could set minimum and maximum donations based on sizes of the contractors or other criteria, so no contractor could be “outspent”. If a contractor really wanted to help only his or her candidate of choice, they are free to do so, but will be shut out of any work with that municipality. This would separate the friend I’ve known for years from the guy buying his way into a contract.  The system would make people who profit from towns, actually help pay for the town’s political process by equally getting information from candidates to the electorate. Both candidates would have an equal chance to spend. If one candidate appeals to more of the electorate, individuals will speak by giving them more personal, no strings money. Once elected, the candidate can’t be “persuaded” by the donors to “remember” how much they donated when contemplating issuing a contract. The idea is in its infancy and I’m sure there would be some analysis needed to keep people from getting around the rules, such as tracking how much the Camden County political organization gave to the Bergen County political organization and make sure there was not a circumvented payment. Maybe New Jersey voters have accepted the corruptible practice of “pay to play”. Maybe they don’t care or maybe they think somehow, someway politicians will get around the rules. I know that if we don’t come up with more solutions to the problem, it will only get worse. I think at a minimum that our deputy mayor wouldn’t find himself and his reputation in this rather difficult place.  Any comments and suggestions are welcome.  I can be contacted at hahcpa@optonline.net   Howard Hyde