Entries in property taxes (13)


NJ Herald wrong on motor-voter, as some say prison voting is next.

The New Jersey Herald ran a seriously limp editorial yesterday. 

Here's what they had to say: 

What's the harm in making voting easier? 

New Jersey this week became the 12th state -- the third so far this year -- to approve automatic voter registration when persons get or renew their driver's licenses.

Though voter registration had previously been possible at MVC offices in New Jersey, persons had to opt in. The law passed by the Legislature along party lines and signed by Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy on Tuesday automatically would register eligible persons to vote unless they opt out. Eligible, by the way, means that among the criteria, they would have to be legal citizens. 

What the Herald doesn't explain is that at the request of several Democrat-leaning organizations, the majority Democrats amended this bill (A-2014) in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.  The committee added language to expand "required automatic voter registration" to other state agencies as well, including welfare and parole offices.  One Democrat claimed that this bill would "help convicts get onto the voter rolls once they have completed their sentences." 

As many who are paying attention to the New Jersey Democrats' agenda already know, the Democrats are very keen on extending voter registration to prison inmates convicted of crimes of all kinds.  Essentially, they want to turn prisons into massive get-out-the-vote operations in order to swing an election or two.  Is A-2014 a first step down that road? 

What is even more curious is what's left out of the bill.  Why isn't a potential voter automatically signed-up when he or she pays property taxes or the state income tax?  How about when someone applies for a hunting or fishing license -- or a firearms permit?  What about automatic registration when you apply for any one of the licenses required to operate a small business or a professional license or a license for self-employment? 

If the goal is to "increase voter turnout" -- then why not cast a wider net?  

The Democrats appear to know exactly which voters they want this law to reach and those they don't much care about.  We hope that A-2014 wasn't the product of mere cynicism and that some good will come from it. 

As for "increasing voter turnout", one suggestion does come to our mind and that is providing voters with more choices.  We'd love to see more parties but in much of New Jersey there are not even two.  In this year's Freeholder races in Sussex County, for instance, the Sussex County Democrats didn't even turn in petitions to run.  That means that only Republicans will be on the ballot in November.

Sussex County isn't alone.  In many other places the Republicans failed to turn in petitions.  Nobody needs a new law to address this.  Just candidates.  One party elections are a good way to kill turnout.


On Facebook, two Freeholders contradict their vote for more debt.

Politicians sometimes forget that Facebook is public.  In all that fake bonhomie and throwing around of "likes" they forget.

And so it was a couple days ago, when a Newton councilman reflected on how the sale of a large commercial property in Newton would negatively impact residents in terms of property taxes.  Just days before, the Sussex County Freeholder Board had voted to fund the purchase of that property by the Sussex County Community College, through incurring more debt.

Curiously, two of the Freeholders who voted for that purchase and for more debt put up "likes" next to the Councilman's comments in opposition to what they had done.  Strange.

Now here is a question for voters:  Do you know who your elected freeholders are well enough to identify the names of the two?

Comments are open.


Warren County is set to cut county property taxes

Under the leadership of outgoing Freeholder Director Ed Smith, Warren County cut spending and debt and held the line on property taxes.  Because of their fiscal discipline, now the Warren County Freeholders can actually cut property taxes for county residents.

Here are a few of the headlines from Warren County...

Warren County looking at lowest budget in 9 years


Feb 25, 2016 - WHITE TWP., N.J. - For the first time since 2012, Warren County is looking at a balanced budget, according to freeholders. Warren County officials moved forward with the 2016 budget Wednesday , setting their eyes on attracting new business to the county. The proposed budget shows no tax increase and ...

Warren Co. Freeholders pass 2017 budget with no tax increase


Mar 22, 2017 - Warren County Freeholders passed the 2017 county budget with no tax levy increases Wednesday night.

Warren County keeps taxes flat in lowest budget since 2005 ...


Mar 24, 2017 - Warren County's $91.8 million spending plan for 2017 provides for a new library location and continued courthouse repairs without any added impact to taxpayers. The annual budget -- the county's lowest since 2005 -- was unanimously approved by the three-member freeholder board this week. Spending ... 

In contrast, we have Sussex County.  Our residents have seen property taxes, spending, and debt go up every year.  

Freeholders introduce budget, up 3.47 percent with tax hike

Posted: Mar. 24, 2017 12:01 am 

The budget is a 3.47 percent increase from last year's $109.4 million budget and the total tax levy would increase by nearly $4.3 million to $89.14 million countywide.

The proposed budget would increase taxes $61.70 per $100,000 of assessed value on the average homeowner. The tax rate is 53 cents per $100 of assessed value, compared to 50 cents per $100 of assessed value last year.

It is time for Sussex County to follow Warren County in adopting a no borrowing without voter approval ordinance.  It is a reform that leads to less spending. less debt, and lower property taxes.  It will end back room deals and the hard sell-jobs by so-called county "experts."  Just the facts, transparency, open discussion, and then the voters -- the taxpayers -- decide.



Perez, Boxer, and the $518,000 solar study scam 

Matthew Boxer was the State Comptroller from January 2008 until December 2013.  Before taking this position, Mr. Boxer was an associate with the New York City law firm of Lowenstein Sandler.  After leaving office, he returned to that firm as a partner.

Most residents of Sussex County are aware of the scandal that involved a public-private partnership to install solar panels on local government buildings, using federal subsidies.  As it turned out, the private entity responsible for the work was under-capitalized, failed to pay the contractor doing the work, was sued by the contractor, and the project stopped.  The cost to taxpayers in Sussex County is estimated at upwards of $40 million.

Sussex was one of three counties involved in this project -- Somerset and Morris were the others.  Lacking its own agency, Sussex County worked through the Morris County Improvement Authority (MCIA), although each county made its own individual contracts with the entity, called Sunlight General, a new creation with a board of directors drawn largely from a French bank.

In February 2011, the Board of Chosen Freeholders of Sussex County authorized a shared services agreement with the MCIA to implement the solar project.  In July 2011, the project was sent to the Office of the State Comptroller for review.  After reviewing all the project documents, the following month (August 2011), the project was given the okay by the Office of the State Comptroller -- headed up by Mr. Matthew Boxer.  Based the affirmative review given by Mr. Boxer's office, the Sussex County Freeholders went forward with the project.

Apparently, the project was so fashioned that by October 2011, Sussex County had received just one bid -- from Sunlight General.  And so, in that month, the Sussex County Freeholders awarded the contract to Sunlight General.

The Freeholder Boards of Morris, Somerset, and Sussex Counties all signed agreements -- reviewed by the Office of the State Comptroller (Mr. Boxer's office) -- that used taxpayer-secured debt to back up SunLight General's operations.  Unfortunately, the contracts were poorly written, the expected flow of capital was fanciful, the projects poorly planned and executed.  Allow us to quote from the documents supplied by the federal court:

Yes, the Office of the State Comptroller -- Mr. Matthew Boxer's office -- let down the taxpayers of Sussex County.  Matthew Boxer got to move on to his law partnership and the Office of the State Comptroller just keeps on reviewing what it reviews and the residents of Sussex County are left to deal with the $40 million loss in their (higher) property tax bills.  In March 2015, the Freeholder Boards of both Sussex and Morris Counties reached out to the Office of the State Comptroller and formally requested that the State Comptroller review the project -- for a second opinion.

About this time, the name Matthew Boxer resurfaced again, only now it was as part of a proposal to bring in "outside counsel" to review the solar project and what went wrong.  Two members of the Sussex County Freeholder Board, who are very close to Democrat Freeholder candidate Dan Perez, pushed for Mr. Boxer to be brought in for this purpose.  Below is a memo from attorney Dan Perez (now himself a candidate for Sussex County Freeholder) to then Freeholder Gail Phoebus:

In April 2015, the Office of the State Comptroller turned down both Sussex and Morris Counties' requests to review the solar project.  No official reason was ever provided.  However, there is an "unofficial" explanation provided in a May 26, 2015, memo from the MCIA to the Morris County Freeholders.  It goes as follows:

So it appears that the Office of the State Comptroller had conducted a review of the solar project it had signed-off on, but was unwilling to share said review.  The memo continued:

The "post-review decision not to review the matter..."  Wow. 

The Office of the State Comptroller's recalcitrance to share the review that they had already conducted or to take that review further was a loss to the taxpayers of Sussex County, but a boon to former State Comptroller Matthew Boxer, who was now being touted as the only man to do a review that was to be paid for by fresh taxpayer's money.

And so, it came to pass that in January 2016 a new Freeholder Board in Sussex County -- now controlled by the very same individuals who had been for months advocating for the selection of Matthew Boxer as the only man to review the solar project -- handed Matthew Boxer a contract for $500,000 to conduct said review.

The manner in which this contract was provided to Mr. Boxer was curious, and remains unexplained to this day.  In a letter, dated January 19, 2016, a Sussex County Freeholder wrote to Mr. Boxer's firm inquiring how he came by it.  Here is what he wrote:

To this day, this Freeholder -- a respected member of the community in Sussex County and a veteran of the Korean War -- has never received the courtesy of a reply.  Why not? 

So the Freeholder wrote to the State Ethics Commission and noted the following:

To which the State Ethics Commission replied:

The word "facts" is used when "representations" might be more appropriate.  As the State Ethics Commission did not conduct its own review of the Office of the State Comptroller's "records and emails... correspondence... other documents", it is clear that they are simply accepting Mr. Boxer at his word.

Doesn't it seem strange to claim that the person in charge of an office was so lax as to have no knowledge of what was a three-county project involving -- to start -- $100 million.  And that his office reviewed nearly a dozen similar contracts involving many more millions in public money.  Okay. let's accept that Mr. Boxer was a "delegator" without direct, day-to-day knowledge about the office he was responsible for.  How did he come to be recommended as the sole recipient of a $500,000 contract to review what his office failed in reviewing at the start? 

In its reply, the State Ethics Commission expressly invited further inquiry:

It is time for the Freeholders to establish a citizen's commission to investigate this corrupt mess and call those who have benefited to account.  Make someone like Harvey Roseff the chairman and you won't need to spend a half million dollars of taxpayers' money (property tax money!) to get the job done.


Democrat Hamilton's lies continued. . .

At last evening's debate, Democrat legislative candidate Jennifer Hamilton pulled some facts out of... thin air?  Or her bottom?  We can't tell where they came from, but we can tell they have been made up.

Once again, there is data on this.  Perhaps they should go back to teaching the philosophical underpinnings of "truth" at law school -- or at least hone wannabe lawyers' research skills -- because if Jennifer Hamilton is a representation of this new breed of lawyer, you don't want her in the Legislature or the Judiciary.

In this case, the data is from the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority.

And the data is pretty clear.  Jennifer Hamilton lied -- again -- when she made the false claim that last year's gas tax increase is costing the average household $500 more for gas each year.  First of all, gasoline prices are lower today than they were in 2015, as this graph clearly shows, so nobody is paying more for gasoline than they have in the past.

Yes, we are clearly paying less today for gasoline at the pump than we did in 2015. 

So now let's examine Hamilton's $500-per-year figure.  According to the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority's latest data the total "Vehicle Miles Traveled" per day in the county is 3,113,131.  And the total number of housing units for Sussex County are 62,057.

If you divide those 3,113,131 miles travelled by those 62,057 housing units, you  get 50.17 miles per housing unit per day (on average). 

 Multiplying 50.17 miles per day by 365 equals 18,312 miles driven by the average housing unit per year in Sussex County.  If the overall price of gasoline had not declined, the New Jersey Department of Transportation's data indicates that the gas tax increase would have cost an additional 1 cent per mile.  At one cent-per-mile that comes to $183.12 per year.  NOT the $500 figure belched out at the debate by Democrat Hamilton. 

Hamilton lied.

And in any case, gas prices at the pump have gone down since 2015, not up.