“An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.” –James Madison, 1788
The Affordable Housing Issue
Affordable housing, especially for senior citizens, has been a campaign topic in many election seasons; but, the recent efforts at the last town council meeting were focused on preventing the state of NJ from seizing Oakland funds earmarked for local affordable housing.
The majority of residents in Oakland who are now parents of grammar school, high school and college students were only children themselves — or not even born yet – when the New Jersey State Supreme Court handed down the Mount Laurel decision in 1975 which led to the present day COAH requirements concerning affordable housing.
In order for municipalities to work towards meeting these requirements, trusts were established and funds collected via fees charged to developers. After 37 years of court cases, work-arounds, and overall lack of activity by many municipalities, Governor Chris Christie has put local officials feet to the fire to either “use it or lose it” with respect to the hundreds of thousands of dollars they have set aside for affordable housing. In Oakland’s case, this totals well over $800,000.
While Christie’s impending deadline is fraught with ambiguity, Oakland is moving to make its first foray into providing affordable housing in order to secure these funds. In March, John Biale, a resident of Oakland and a member of the Bergen County Housing Authority, presented to the town council a proposal to put a senior housing unit in the now vacant property a few doors down from the Oakland First Aid building.
It was estimated that $300,000 could be used for this purchase, and since then there have been discussions to purchase adjoining properties to this site and expand the number of available units.
The Housing Corporation
Council member Visconti proposed the establishment of quasi-governmental body which would take control of the Oakland money, and assumedly put it beyond the reach of Chris Christie – but also beyond the reach of Oakland citizens.
On the other side of the aisle, Mayor Schwager and council member Coira argued instead for moving forward with the Bergen County Housing Authority construction, and then detail for the state a plan on how the remaining monies would be appropriated by the council for additional COAH units.
The Visconti plan was adopted by the council, but with significant changes. The original plan for the quasi-governmental entity called for a majority of trustees to be active council persons. After one resident spoke publicly over the legal ramifications and municipal exposure to lawsuits, Visconti offered to amend his plan so the housing corporation would include four residents of Oakland.
It is questionable whether the last minute amendment provides enough protection to the town of Oakland since a 7 member board would still leave the 3 council members as a voting majority in situations where only a quorum meets. A board of 11 members would assure that the town council members, in a voting majority, do not expose Oakland to lawsuits from the COAH unit residents.
Checks & Balances
The structure of the new housing corporation in Oakland was also is drenched in partisan politics when Visconti moved to have the mayor’s power to nominate appointees, with the consent of council, completely removed.
Under Oakland’s borough form of government, there is an executive branch represented by the mayor, and a legislative branch represented by the town council. While the borough form of government instills very little power in the office of mayor, it does provide for the mayor to make appointments with the consent of council.
This fundamental power was stripped from Oakland’s mayor, and all future Oakland mayors, when council member Visconti moved to have the mayor’s role completely removed. This partisan maneuver circumvents the checks and balances delineated in Oakland’s government, New Jersey’s government, and the government of the United States which originated the concept the separation of powers.
Understanding the need to foster credibility with these new “independent” agencies, other towns have acted conservatively and followed the manner generally required for appointments by the form of government under which the municipality is governed….except Oakland.
Instead of following established laws and procedures, Oakland’s partisan politics is preparing to build affordable housing on a corrupt foundation.
The Oakland plan, as presently put forth, removes any checks and balances, and creates an “independent” corporation consisting of 3 council members and their own appointees….and bestows on them independent control of $800,000 dollars to spend as they alone see fit. It’s structure, limiting the corporations boards to only 7 members and allowing the 3 Oakland council members a majority vote in the case of a quorum, continues to expose the town of Oakland with regard to potential lawsuits.
Getting It Right
- The Oakland town council, in the practical exercise of expanding government, should follow the manner required for appointments by the Oakland form of government and allow for mayoral nominations to the housing corporation to be brought to a vote.
- It should also assure that the town of Oakland is not responsible for any debts incurred by the housing corporation, or expose the town to any lawsuits, by increasing the number of Oakland residents that serve as board members so that the council members do not exercise a majority vote.
If government is going to get bigger, it should at least get bigger according to the checks and balances under which we are governed.
Submitted by Charles McCormick -2012
LINKS:
The Quasi Government: Hybrid Organizations
I don’t understand. I thought that I lived amongst some fairly intelligent people in Oakland. Why is it that Republicans lose sight of what it is right and wrong when it comes to money and voting for George W. Bush?
It is for control and power. They can’t get enough of it.
Curious to see which non council members Visconti assigns to this money grabbing group. He already announced he wants his 6 year council buddy/campaign manager Frank DiPentima to be be a cohort. That leaves 3 more seats. I expect one more blood brother and 2 stooges. The stooges will be there so Visconti can say “look I have these 2 non ORC members, this is independent” . I really hope the republicans in town don’t vote for Pignatelli and Visconti because they are voting against Obama. I hope people read, watch and listen, then vote against these 2 for a better Oakland. A
I’m embarassed by Mr. Visconti’s decision. Three republican council members and four council-appointed trustees equals “stacking the deck” to me. The mayor should decide the appointment of qualified Oakland residents as trustees. We, the taxpayers, need more support on this issue.
Bedee, bedee, bedee….That’s all folks!