Police Facility in Johnson Park

[just watching]

POLICE FACILITY:  I think this topic deserves it's own thread, and I couldn't find one looking through the archives here.

The proposed site is not "behind" Johnson Park, it is in Johnson Park.

This application is (or should be) complicated by the fact that Johnson Park is PARKLAND.  Hackensack signed a contract with the NJ Green Acres program in 1983 or 1984 when it expanded Carver Park.  Under the terms of the contract, all parkland in the city is forever preserved as Parkland, including Johnson Park.  Green Acres doesn't want to give money to any municipality to create parkland, and then see the municipality sell off other parkland or convert it to non-parkland use.  That's why they make cities and towns sign a contract.  Hackensack is forever bound by that contract, because we took money from Green Acres in 1984.

The NJ Green Acres Program is not going to allow parkland to be converted into a "building", and then allow more acreage of parkland to be paved with asphalt to provide a large parking lot needed to support the building.  The public could easily lose another 3 acres of parkland in Johnson Park just to create a parking lot for the police.

Well, Green Acres isn't going to stop the application unless someone challenges what the Hackensack Police Department is claiming. To my knowledge, nobody is raising a red flag with the NJ Green Acres Program.  And don't wait for the Hackensack Riverkeeper to take the lead on this.  They won't touch this one because they are in Hackensack and they need to shut their mouth for political expediency.

Here's the tricky part: The Police are saying that they aren't erecting a new building, they are just tearing down an existing building that is not devoted to park use, and creating a new building on the same footprint that is not devoted to park use.  Sounds fine until you actually look at the site. This new "building" on the same footprint is an enormous 2-story Emergency Command Center and Police Training Center. Now, what they call an existing "building" is an open grassy area that is about 50% surrounded by a cinderblock wall, and 50% surrounded by a chain-link fence.  It is used as a firing range. To call that firing range a "building" is absurd, but that's the only way to try and make this thing fly under the radar of the NJDEP, and especially the NJDEP Green Acres Program.

If you look at the square footage of floor space for the new construction proposed, it is vastly larger than the existing Hackensack Police Department.  So what is really going on here ? Basically, they are relocating most of the Police Department to Johnson Park, while keeping some people and some resources at the old facility on State Street.

It's really dishonest how the Police are presenting this issue.  This is a big part of why I am upset with the Hackensack Police, but certainly not the only issue.  Gee, I hope I don't get sued.  Whether or not this building is in a flood-plain is an utterly trivial issue compared to the Green Acres conflict, the loss of parkland for the facility and it's parking lot, and to how the public is being kept in the dark about what is really going on about the substantial relocation of the police department. Yes, it is in a flood plain, but only marginally.

I agree that Hackensack needs a new and larger Police Department.  If they want to combine it with some kind of Emergency Response Center that is needed regionally, that is fine by me.  But, let me state clearly and emphatically, it is NOT to be built on city parkland.  Find somewhere else to put in.  The city owns land at Essex and Green Street, for example, and can condemn more acreage if needed.

Even better, they can also put it on Central Ave between First Street and Railroad Ave along the south side of the entire block, and put the parking on the north side of the street, except for one garden apartment complex. I estimate that we'll have 10% less crime in Hackensack and 30% less murders if that entire block is torn down, so we'll need less police manpower in the future. There would be an upfront cost to buy the houses and relocate tenants, but in the long run we save money on costly salaries.  We need an administration in power that is bold enough to make this happen. The condemnations can't be challenged as "eminent domain abuse" because it's being used to create a public facility, not for economic development.  The courts are iron-solid on that one. Every attempt should be made to relocate the residents within the city limits of Hackensack. They'll be better off living on quieter streets elsewhere in the Carver Park Community or anywhere in Hackensack. Those kids who move will be less likely to be exposed to inner-city influences which seem to be concentrated on that one block, and will be less likely to turn to crime or drugs. The future of kids' lives is important too.

If a new police station is built elsewhere in Hackensack, city hall facilities can occupy the former police department on State Street and all the police parking spots, so the city won't need to build a whole new city hall. 

[DLabrosse]

Although the Mayor, Council, and City Manager state they are not sure what this building will be used for, they currently refer to it as a public safety training facility (FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 11-2009 City Council Minutes April 20, 2009)

1.   This Public Safety Training Facility = unnecessary burden on the taxpayers. We already have a state of the art facility in Mahwah. Why burden the taxpayers with a duplicate of something we use for free. If you were at the last council meeting you would have heard our city leaders state they will still be using the facility in Mahwah. Yes we pay county taxes for that facility but we will continue to pay those taxes after this facility is built. We also will pay heating and air conditioning costs, maintenance, instructors, and of course added insurance.

2.   At the last council meeting, the city leaders claimed they are not sure what the emergency training building will be used for. They also stated the cost will be about 1.2 million.  Add it up. $1 million dollars was appropriated for this facility in 2006 and a bond for $950,000 of the $1M was sold in 2007. We have been paying interest on this bond since then.  As reported in the county seat, $575,000 of the $1M (from HUMC) is going towards this bldg. At the last council meeting $400,000 more was appropriated for this building. $950,000 plus $575,000 plus $400,000 comes to 1 million eight hundred seventy five thousand dollars.  So far! All for a building the city leaders said they are not sure of what the use will be. Do you really believe this is in the best interest of the residents??

3.   Don’t forget this building is in a flood zone and the City Manager stated they will raise the roads to get to the building. And, don’t forget the mandatory testing of the soil. If lead is found and the soil and needs to be remediate, the cost will skyrocket. Resident requests that the council hold off on this project until the soil testing was complete fell on deaf ears.

[Hack72]

That's an excellent and relevant point on the Green Acres thing.  I know there are semantics that can be used to get around the green acres, just like there were when the Open Spaces grant put astro turf on the HS football field, even though schools don't qualify for open spaces grants...

I also would like more of direct communication on this.  If they're looking to rebuild a police station, they should state that.  No need to be underhanded. 

I want to ask for clarification on the following quote, though.  First of all, people own those houses.  The fact that crimes have frequently been committed there does not remove the owners' rights to own that property.  There are certainly enough unused or "for sale" properties that the motives behind flattening a residential block would certainly be called into question.  And I wonder at your statistics of crime reduction?  I also question your claim that people would be "better off" living near Carver Park.  If the city were to make that decision for people, I would be truly frightened (well, more than I am now!) 

I think it may be time that we alert the Management of Green Acres to ensure that we are in compliance.

Even better, they can also put it on Central Ave between First Street and Railroad Ave along the south side of the entire block, and put the parking on the north side of the street, except for one garden apartment complex. I estimate that we'll have 10% less crime in Hackensack and 30% less murders if that entire block is torn down, so we'll need less police manpower in the future. There would be an upfront cost to buy the houses and relocate tenants, but in the long run we save money on costly salaries.  We need an administration in power that is bold enough to make this happen. The condemnations can't be challenged as "eminent domain abuse" because it's being used to create a public facility, not for economic development.  The courts are iron-solid on that one. Every attempt should be made to relocate the residents within the city limits of Hackensack. They'll be better off living on quieter streets elsewhere in the Carver Park Community or anywhere in Hackensack. Those kids who move will be less likely to be exposed to inner-city influences which seem to be concentrated on that one block, and will be less likely to turn to crime or drugs. The future of kids' lives is important too.

[just watching]

Great, here's another person saying to just let kids live there exposed to crime and drugs.  Some people may think it's better that they stay there than move to other neighborhoods where they might not be wanted. 

You remember the shootings incidents a couple of years ago, 2 teenagers from the neighborhood died on that block.  As I recall, the incident started with a dispute while "hanging out" in a boarding house, on that very block, a boarding house that is infested with crime and drugs.  There are several boarding houses on the block, and they effectively serve as half-way houses, that is where prisoners go when they are released from jail and they can't get an apartment.  The second shooting incident was called "suicide by cop", but what actually happened is that he first opened fire on the police.  A police officer could have been killed that day, and I think eventually one will die on that block.  And there have been many other murders, shootings, and drug arrests, going all the way back at least to 1971.  There is more trouble on that one block than in the rest of Carver Park community combined. 

So if the city needs to tear something down to build a new police station, why not solve two problems at the same time.  The city gets a new police station, centrally-located in the city (which makes sense), and we can clean up all the trouble on that block.  Trouble that unfairly stigmatized the rest of the Carver Park community.

When Government gets tired of crime and drugs, kids dying, and kids lives ruined, government makes decisions to end the hemmoraging.  That's the way it should be, as far as I'm concerned.

But I think we are still living in a reactionary era, one in which government is afraid of being criticized. Afraid to implement "tough love", afraid to make the decisions that need to be made for the well-being of everyone.  Yes, I do advocate stronger government.  You should be happy I'm not running for office.

[Hack72]

The fact that crimes have frequently been committed there does not remove the owners' rights to own that property.  There are certainly enough unused or "for sale" properties that the motives behind flattening a residential block would certainly be called into question.  And I wonder at your statistics of crime reduction?  I also question your claim that people would be "better off" living near Carver Park.  If the city were to make that decision for people, I would be truly frightened =

Great, here's another person saying to just let kids live there exposed to crime and drugs.  Some people may think it's better that they stay there than move to other neighborhoods where they might not be wanted. 

Um, really?  Is that what I said?
Yes, I do advocate stronger government.  You should be happy I'm not running for office.

Yes, I guess I should be.


* note - all text in green is mine.

[regina]

I was right there with you just watching until you started talking about destroying peoples' homes. You may not like the area, but they live there.

Anyway, Hackensack owns enough property in this City that they could find another location. How about Essex & Green? We invested quite a bit of time & money there already. It might be workable for the Training Center. BUT the fact remains that we do not need this facility. It is a waste of resources and a duplication of services.

[just watching]

It's not a question of whether I like a particular street or not.  I have great compassion for all the people of Hackensack, whether they are exposed to neighbor's crime and drug problems on a daily basis, or whether they are living in a luxury penthouse on Prospect Ave.

But from a spiritual perspective, I do believe that each person has, or should have, a mission in life to better the condition of humanity.  If that one block on Central Ave is the most troubled block in the City of Hackensack, there should be a mission to improve it, and to improve the lives of the people who live there.  None of the candidates are stating anything to improve the street, are they

Some people may disagree, but I do believe each family with children is far better off living elsewhere in Hackensack. Literally anywhere else in Hackensack, to be specific.  The inconvenience of people having to move is a very poor excuse to leave conditions the way they are.  It's a moral issue, and it doesn't sit well with me to allow such a concentration of crime, drugs, and urban problems to continue.  There's nothing like it anywhere in Hackensack or in Bergen County.  It is negatively affecting too many people, and stigmatizing other nearby blocks which don't have those problems.  It is bad spiritually for this to continue.

But at the same time I am a realist --- nobody in politics will endorse such a controversial proposal, especially during an election. 

I would be happier than a pig in mud to see any of the candidates come out with a comprehensive program to clean up that block of Central Ave, without tearing it down to build a police station.  ANY change there is welcomed.

[just watching]

See today's Record article.  It looks like some of the candidates have something to say about this facility, although they haven't hit on the hot-button issues:

Trio present case for a better Hackensack
Thursday, May 7, 2009

BY NICK CLUNN
NorthJersey.com
STAFF WRITER
 0 Comments    This is the first of three articles on Tuesday's City Council election in Hackensack.

HACKENSACK – Three candidates running for City Council under the banner "United for Change" vowed to fight pay-to-play, support stronger incentives for downtown businesses and oppose a new police training center if swept into office next week.

The slate composed of Rhonda Williams Bembry, Guy Navarro and Margaret Otchy – none of whom ever has run for council – hopes to unseat at least some incumbents in the May 12 non-partisan race for five four-year terms. Another slate of challengers is also vying for those seats.

Bembry, having served three years on the city's Board of Education, is the only candidate on the slate who has held elected office. She said she did not seek reelection on the school board this year to run for council, which she said has not done enough to draw businesses into downtown storefronts.

Tax incentives and a downtown shuttle bus for seniors who do not have their own vehicles should be part of the solution, said Bembry, a customer service supervisor for the Postal Service.

"I would like to see Hackensack have the charm of Ridgewood, but still have the services of an urban area," such as stores that sell basics, she said.

Bembry and her running mates oppose the construction of a training center for police and other emergency responders at Johnson Park. Classrooms at the facility would double as a back-up communications center in the event of a disaster, city officials have said.

Navarro said a city training center would only duplicate the kind of services already provided by the county. The Law & Public Safety Institute in Mahwah encompasses academies for police, fire and EMS personnel. It also offers programs for the private sector.

"The Mahwah academy is phenomenal," said Navarro, who manages a security firm. "I would put the Mahwah academy up against any other one in New Jersey except for the State Police."
United for Change also vowed to end pay-to-play in Hackensack by opening the bidding process for jobs that legally can be filled without having to consider other job candidates.

"There's a lot of fat in this budget that we don't need," said Otchy, a research assistant for an authors' submission service. "I'd like to see that shaved down to bare bones."

E-mail: clunn@northjersey.com

This is the first of three articles on Tuesday's City Council election in Hackensack.