VernonsOwn BLOG

By JESSI PALADINI

For months now, since the conviction and sentencing of former Vernon Township Manager Don Teolis, residents have been asking many questions about the more than $10 million town center and sewer projects, but getting answers to the questions has been much of an exercise in futility. I am hoping that will soon change as the Vernon Township Council and manager come to the realization that the questions will not go away and taxpayers demand complete and accurate disclosure.

Since school was out in May and I have had more time to give attention to township affairs, I have found the task of getting information on town center projects almost daunting. The average citizen does not spend the time, nor has the will, to research such information, but in the aftermath of millions of dollars in cost overruns for the projects and one mistake after another by township employees that have cost taxpayers millions, I am angry enough over my taxpayer dollars being squandered and make it a priority to search the public record.

After submitting dozens of OPRA requests (Open Public Records Act) to get information and after spending dozens of hours reviewing the information at the municipal center only to find vague and contradictory public documents, I am beginning to think township officials intentionally make it difficult for taxpayers to get information and hope they will eventually get frustrated with the process and go away. This writer is not going away.

The township council, in its promise of total transparency after the former manager’s disgraceful theft of taxpayer funds, has not kept its word thus far. For example, the council directed the township engineer to give a presentation on the town center project and its costs, but what residents saw was nothing more than a colorful PowerPoint fluff piece that gave little accountability and inaccurate or incomplete total costs for the project.

In another example, the township council approved the 2008 budget without any presentations, charts, or documentation for the public. That was the first time in the 20 years I have attended governing body meetings in any town, including Vernon, that a municipal budget was approved without any public explanation or participation whatsoever.

On Monday, I made five separate phone calls to four different township departments to find out what the proposed new tax rate will be in the 2008 municipal budget. Not one of the employees in the tax assessor’s, tax collector’s, or manager’s office could give me that number. In reviewing the proposed budget and calculating the increase between the amount of money to be raised through local taxes from 2007 to 2008, the numbers go from $12,459,024 to $13, 938,032, which represents an 11.8 percent increase.

At a recent town council meeting, when Tom McClachrie, the head of the Vernon Taxpayers Association, mentioned the nearly 12% increase to be raised by local taxation, neither the mayor nor the manager knew the numbers but replied, “That doesn’t seem right.”  It is, indeed right—there is nearly 12% increase, but don’t expect to get an answer from municipal employees because all of them claim they do not know.

For years I have been saying that the actions of the governing bodies from 2000 to 2007 have resulted in the highest rate of tax increases in the last several decades. Average property taxes nearly doubled in Vernon since 2000. And we haven’t seen the results of the revaluation yet.  

In trying to figure out or even understand what went wrong in our town, one has to keep going back to the manager. The manager is the chief executive officer and is responsible for operating all aspects of the town. One of my conclusions is that at taxpayer expense, former township manager Don Teolis created an empire for himself at the municipal center.

Vernon Township has always paid its municipal employees higher salaries than their counterparts in other communities. Years of salary surveys proved this to be true. In addition, many of the employees received longevity raises, which most municipalities do not pay.

For nearly a decade in Vernon there was a hiring freeze on municipal employees. For several years, the township also reduced the municipal workforce through attrition, but that all changed with the new governing bodies taking office after 2000 and their subsequent hiring of Teolis as manager about three years later.

My first hint of Teolis’s impending empire was when he doubled the size of his office and the office of his secret paramour, his administrative assistant, and put an inside connecting door between them. He then placed an iron gate in front of the manager’s office complex to prevent anyone getting past the secretary sitting at the gate. Then, he created many new municipal positions, resulting in an increase of more than one million dollars in salaries alone.

These include the hiring of his own stepson for the newly created position of Construction Project Coordinator; the Department of Engineering, which costs taxpayers nearly $300,000 in annual salaries; and the Department of Personnel, which costs about $152,224 in annual salaries. In addition, all of these positions and departments have annual operating expenses.

In researching other municipalities, I learned that Vernon Township is the only one in Sussex County to have an in-house, full-time staff engineer and engineering department, with the exception of Sparta Township, which has a full-time engineer. The difference is that Sparta’s engineer does all of the municipality’s projects while Vernon’s engineer, Lou Kneip, merely oversees them and hires various other consulting engineers for projects. Thus, we are paying multiple engineers for town projects.

In an attempt to reduce costs this month, three of the five employees in the Vernon Animal Control center got pink slips. The total combined annual salaries for these part-time employees are about $50,000. This will result in a significant reduction in services to the community from the animal shelter.

What is the logic of eliminating low-level employees who provide vital services while padding the municipal payroll with high salaried positions and departments we don’t need? While I blame the former manager and governing bodies for creating the financial nightmare that exists in Vernon Township, the current governing body and manager have just as much responsibility to correct it. So far they are doing little or nothing, not in reducing expenses and not in transparency in disclosing information to the public, particularly not when the public cannot even get answers to the most simple questions. 

By JESSI PALADINI

Individuals wanting to review public records in the Vernon Municipal Center are met with an extremely courteous and friendly person in township clerk Dennis Murray, the custodian in charge of the records. Dennis goes to every means to provide the records as quickly as possible and provides a comfortable place to sit and review them in town hall. But one should not get used to the friendly demeanor and accommodating personality; Dennis is leaving on September 1, having tendered his resignation after deciding the position he has held since March 24 is not for him. And while Dennis is an extremely pleasant person to deal with, one should never assume that the records are accurate, through no fault of his.

The township clerk is the person who facilitates the records and makes them available, but the records themselves are generated through the various township departments, and depending on who is in charge of those departments determines whether the records are accurate or complete.

The Open Public Records Act (OPRA) is legislation that requires government records to be readily accessible to the public for inspection, examination, and copying. Under OPRA, the “physical record includes any paper, written or printed book, document, drawing, map, plan, photograph, microfilm, data-processed or image-processed document, and information stored or maintained electronically or by sound recording.” These records are the workings of a municipal government. OPRA stipulates that while most public records should be readily available upon request, government agencies have up to seven days to provide records that require time to compile or to provide a response requesting more time or a denial of the record.

In my 20 years experience as a journalist, and through my experience as a conscientious citizen, I have found that most departments in the Vernon municipal center are very accommodating in providing most records immediately, although not always complete or accurate. In that time, the only problems I have encountered were with former manager Don Teolis, who sometimes provided rather dubious information or records, and with the current Department of Engineering. Teolis, of course, has been sentenced to five years in prison for stealing taxpayer funds, so one must question the integrity of anything he said or did in the years he was Vernon Township Manager.

Louis Kneip worked very closely with Teolis on town projects. He is the head of the engineering department and holds the title of “Director of Planning and Development.” He is also the only remaining township employee who knows the entire history of the town center and sewer projects since Teolis’s imprisonment and since the recent retirements of assistant manager Gary Gardner, Health Director Gene Osias, and Municipal Clerk Patricia Lycosky. Teolis’s administrative assistant, Annette Yankalunas, was released from her position after prosecutors learned she went on romantic excursions with Teolis at taxpayers’ expense and then falsified township records to cover them up.

Kneip’s PowerPoint presentations, reports, and updates are given to a new manager, a new attorney, mostly new council members, and a new township clerk, all of whom have no history on any of the projects. Much of what is said during public town council meetings is inaccurate, incomplete, vague, evasive, and contrary to what is found when reviewing the public records, particularly concerning the town center and sewer projects.

On two separate occasions in OPRA requests, I asked to see e-mail transmitted among Kneip, Osias, and the Department of Environmental Protection. Both times I was told that none existed. After waiting one month for the e-mails and then threatening to file a complaint with the state, Kneip produced a couple of them. Other sources provided the additional e-mail I was looking for, the ones that Kneip had withheld in my OPRA request.

Many of the public documents released by the township on the town center and sewer projects conflict with one another. One such example is my request to know the total amount of money spent to purchase properties and easements for the town center and sewer projects, the lot and block numbers and locations of those properties, and the prior owners of the properties. The tax assessor’s office gave me a printout of all township owned properties, with the ones in the town center and sewer areas highlighted. Then, nearly two weeks later I received a typed list entitled “Vernon Township Town Center Project Easements, Right of Ways & Purchases.” The lots and blocks and purchase prices on both documents don’t match.

In addition to those numbers not matching, the numbers from the public PowerPoint presentation Kneip gave to the town council—which is also posted on the township’s Web site—don’t match either of the first two documents I received. One document totals the land purchases at nearly $3 million while another claims the total is $1.676 million, and the PowerPoint presentation alleges a total of $2.094 million was spent.

Another example of conflicting disclosure are the statements Kneip made to the mayor and council in early June of this year about the lack of potable water for the town center. His statements at the council meeting differ significantly from the text in his five-page engineer’s report entitled “Vernon Town Center Roadway Water Main” that he submitted to the governing body on November 23, 2005.

Then there is the mysterious change order for the different stone block used for the four retaining walls in the town center. The township began the construction with one style but then changed to the other style, which cost taxpayers an additional $157,125.

In e-mail to the contractor dated October 21, 2005, Lou Kneip states, “We are urgently requesting that you provide us with the cost difference for the ‘Highlands style wall,’ so that a final decision can be made.” Interestingly, the new style matches the stonework of the Highlands State Bank, in which some town officials have a personal financial interest. This was just one of many cost overruns for the town center project, none of which have been elucidated for township residents.

It seems almost impossible to learn what went wrong with Vernon’s town center, but apparently law enforcement agents are still investigating. Why has it taken years to plan and build, has cost more than $10 million, and is still years and many millions of dollars away from completion? Why were so many mistakes made with the potable water, the roadway being built on private property, the retention basin, the cost overruns, the traffic signals and signage, and so much more? Was it inexperience, poor planning, incompetence, criminal activity, or even a mixture of all of these?

Mayor Austin Carew announced at the July 24 council meeting that the township will conduct a “forensic investigation” into the town center project. Vernon citizens should demand nothing less than a complete investigation of every dollar spent and every error made. Our elected governing bodies and appointed town managers do not have the right to recklessly squander taxpayer funds at the whim of a different style for a retaining wall or other design aspects of the project. 

There are three items coming up for voting, all of them involving the redevelopment zones. The Town Center, McAfee Legends, and McAfee Shinnihon/Mulvihill. They are all set to fix our debts and overspending woes with promises of millions of dollars of revenue and economic prosperity.

There is no doubt that we have serious debt issues. Unfortunately the town, as of yet, has been unable to either determine or unable to share exactly what those numbers are. More importantly they have not shared exactly how we got here and what’s in the future. But it is certain they have taken us way beyond what the township aka residents can/could afford.

So as “in Colonial America Servitude also could result from indebtedness, where a person, their spouse or parents owed money, and the person was sold into servitude to recover the debt”*1 our township is forced to resort to servitude with the township selling off its residents to pay the debt.

The exact same thing and promises that were made in the past are againbeing embraced by our township. As in the past it will not free us from our situation. “A major problem with the system of indentured servitude was that in many cases, an indentured servant would become indebted to their employer, who would forgive the debt in exchange for an extension to the period of their indenture, which could thereby continue indefinitely”*2.

Indeed the actions of our township will only serve to make impossible to ever be free of the barons, kings and queens, and developers that can’t seem to possess enough.

To save themselves, they enslave us all the while saying it is being done for our good. For “Wherever you find slavery, you first find indentures”3.

The only difference is that we have the right to “Referendum” and to “Initiative”. They can choose to sell us out but we can choose to stop and/or reverse it as well as eliminate them being in a position to do it again. Your choice–indentured servant/slave of the machine that has run our township to where it is or free resident. Your choice but you must choose now.

*1 Indentured Servitude in Colonial America By Deanna Barker, Frontier
Resources

*2 Wikipedia.org

*3 Indentured Servitude in Colonial America By Deanna Barker, Frontier
Resources

Or the super spectacular waterpark2, hotels central, residential homes blitz, break the townships bank COAH low income housing requirements, the church hotel, build where no other developer can, forget historical and other stated ideals, and get to pay reduced taxes too - area.

The first reading of the ordinance was part of the March 13th council meeting. In another post I mentioned that at the recent goal setting meeting Mr. Oroho asked how people felt about the council’s credibility and trust. The way this particular ordinance has been handled, the changes made to it, and the actions of some members of the council and consultants with regards to it is making it difficult for me to not think that credibility, trust, the best interests of the residents, and the will of the people is not being served. It seems some ethics may be in question with this ordinance as well. I am worried that in its current form we may be setting the town up for a few law suits and further investigation. I intended and tried to relay and present some of this but before I could finish putting it all together I was cut off. Later  called me up to say that wasn’t his intention but that’s what happened intentioned or not. Additionally there was another individual that was trying to find out when to speak on this and if it was a first reading or not and ended up not saying anything at this time due to the not getting a straight helpful answer. It was the opened to the public I wanted to speak.

I’d like to now present some of the big issues and what I was trying to do. First I was trying to save this from going to the Planning Board, having them review it, have it go back to the council, and then have it have to go back to the planning board again due to these issues. I felt it would have been in everyone’s best interests to stop it now and save time and work on the back and forth wagon. I am a concerned resident working two jobs and going to every council meeting so saying you need to go and bring this up at the planning board meeting and not now is difficult to receive well.

**********************************************

Here are some issues I had found.

1) The redevelopment program, redevelopment zones, and the tax breaks, special concessions, and controls that can be crafted into their ordinances were created to provide for economic redevelopment. Part of this are tax allowances and more to entice a developer to come into an area they would otherwise shy away from or avoid completely to build the kind of things that a township believes is needed to provide economic and/or social improvements.

Page 10 item a(2) calls out for 550 vacation type units of which 150 may be detached residences but most will be attached townhome (townhouse?) type. But here is the item that was just added “NO OCCUPANCY RESTRICTION SHALL APPLY TO THESE VACATION TYPE UNITS.” Then they are not vacation units. They are not senior only housing or families without children housing. Part of the big presentations made by the Mulvhills was that this type of housing wouldn’t increase children going into the school systems or impact other municipal resources ($). A single detached housing unit without any occupancy restrictions is a RESIDENTIAL home. You can call it a vacation unit or you can call it a super spectacular appliance but bottom line is it and all of these 550 units would then be nothing more than residential units. This developer and others prior have wanted to build those here for the last 20 years. They don’t need the ability to be able to qualify for special tax incentives and be granted special building variances. No other developers in our town or that tried to build in this area before were or will be given that. Likewise with housing the way it is local homeowners and realtors are having or are going to have trouble selling their houses. The township is providing for someone to pump more units into the pool and giving them incentives that no one else can get. Is the township willing to let all other developers in town and/or homeowners (who truly have vacation style units that are called and taxed as homes because that’s what they are) get a special reduced tax benefit or build on areas that otherwise are not zoned for that? What of residents that want or need to leave. Isn’t this going to make it harder to sell their homes?

2) On page 3 Section 1 it states that this area consists of a portion of “five tax blocks” and lists them. On page 4 there is a table showing those block and lot combinations with current uses and acreages. There is an inconsistency here and it persists through the remainder of the ordinance. On page 3 it calls out “Block 233, Lot 9”. This is not listed in the table at all. This particular block and lot currently belongs to a Church. Having attended previous planning board and council meetings and presentations by parties relating to the McAfee Redevelopment zone I believe I heard it was the churches intention to build a hotel on this site or at the very least get approval for one. No one is questioning the church’s plans to build a hotel as opposed to a hostel, a school, rectory, etc but this to me raises a huge flag. From what I have observed and heard said at meetings our planner and others have worked out things for the church. It this were a church building that might work but if it is for a “hotel” or hotel like structure than why is it not called out and specified as was done for Legends and for the other hotels, vacation units, etc? Why should it get special handling? It needs to be part of the total picture presented.

On page 9 Section 4 it calls out the McAfee Village Mixed Use (MVMU) Redevelopment area zoning element. It states that it will “further protect, stabilize, and facilitate the general welfare of the community”. One of the ways listed it will do this is “to promote the conservation of historic sites and districts”. The building standing on this site is not only a historic site from the standpoint of it being a church but it was originally one of Vernon’s first schools. So not only are the plans to build a hotel here but they then would potentially include the destruction and loss of what is a “historic site”.

Is there a provision that the “allowances” made for the church to build here will be null and void if they just flip the property to another developer? Will the tax exempt status be null and void upon approval of the ordinance with this then being a “hotel” property? Why is none of this addressed in the ordinance? At the very least if indeed a hotel is going in then the number of stories, number of units, and proposed expected square footage needs to be spelled out especially as it has been for the other areas and it would be part of the total COAH obligation.

3) Regarding COAH during the recent presentation by Stuart Koenig it was mentioned that the new 3^rd round of COAH regulations is even tougher than its predecessor. The new growth share obligations changed the ratios for residential from 1to 8 to 1 for 4. The previously mentioned “no restriction units” would translate into approximately 35 COAHS. Additionally the growth based on jobs is going from 1 for 25 to 1 for 16. The new calculation for hotels went from .8 per 1k square feet to 1.7 per 1k or 1 COAH housing unit for every 9,412 square feet of place.

This ordinance calls out a 10 ½ story hotel, with two other hotels for a total of three. Based on previous presentations this doesn’t include the already mentioned church hotel which brings us to 4. Also and will get to this in next section there are listed another 2 hotels on the Sammis property for a total of six hotels contributing to a huge COAH obligation. This is even before the Town Center or Mountain Creek COAH obligations are addressed.

Unless the developers are willing to foot the entire bill for these units it can add millions and millions to the townships debt and costs. That’s at best. In the past it was possible to pay to create the units in other towns’ urban areas that need them. We have even participated in this feature. The problem is the rules have changed as recently witnessed by Wantage. Part of what we may think will remain rural may be forced to be converted to urban housing by a developer. In addition to Wantage in 2007 the townships of Monroe, Carlstadt, and Bloomingdale all are wrestling with “builders remedy lawsuits” for COAH obligations. Vernon can’t afford to be next on this list. It is possible for a township to be sued even before the plans are approved by the planning board.

As it stands with this ordinance we may give these redevelopers the breaks and the benefits only to have to have the town still have more units built for COAH with no economic caveat for the township. If the hotels and indoor water parks fold, as has happened before with prior resort areas in our town, we now will have incurred enormous additional debt with nothing to help pay for it. Do not also forget the additional municipal expenses that would be incurred from school enrollment, social services, load on roads, etc.

One last huge potential impact that “builders remedy” might create has not to my knowledge been mentioned by anyone. A critical part of our town center, of the mountain creek redevelopment area, and of impending township costs are the sewers and recharge center. It is feasible that a portion of the allocations that everyone have been making plans with would need to go to COAH housing. There are not many other places in town that could support without phenomenal costs if at all the building of large septic systems so the sewers and those allocations might be sucked up with this type of litigation/scenario.

4) On page 11 section 3(i) it mentions that the redevelopment area specifically “excludes the Sammis property” but then adds it “shall be included in the MVMU zone upon adoption of the appropriate Plan and zoning ordinance”. If you remember from above “MVMU” stands for the McAfee Village Multiple Use area. So with a little word shuffling it appear to say it isn’t included and then says but it will be along with its two previously mentioned hotels. Again this is land that the developer was planning on developing on so there is no need for the bonus incentives that come with redevelopment zones.

Referring back to page 9 section 4 objectives for the MVMU area - “to promote”, “open space”, “valuable natural resources”, and “to prevent urban sprawl”. It will provide for economic development “while maintaining the rural mountain character”, “as well as protecting the more environmentally sensitive areas” of the Township. Doesn’t including and now stretching the MVMU zone across all of the listed areas AND the Sammis farm do exactly the opposite? Doesn’t having 150 detached residential units do this as well? If you look at the areas that will be affected a huge reversed “L” shape becomes nothing less than an area of sprawl and in one of the most scenic parts of the drive along route 94.

5) Referring again to the MVMU objectives. The “while maintaining the rural mountain character” went from being acknowledged as high priority and an integral part of what Vernon-ites wanted to see protected to a washed out by semantics and re-qualified “technically speaking” definitions of “ridgelines”. Residents deserve better than this. As we drive along rte 94 or down 517 toward McAfee there is an area that to Vernon residents a beautiful ridgeline rising up out of the valley. On the Legends side it likewise rises out of the golf courses and filled in wetlands. Some of it beautiful rock quarry formations. It is part of what makes the golf course and Legends and what the Playboy club saw it as an area with beautiful mountain character. It is and will be for many residents, myself included, actually something of value to us as residents that is part of what makes Vernon Vernon. To use technical quotations and reduce it to not being ridgelines because it’s less than 200’ is insulting. To then go even further and add exemption from the steep slope zoning restrictions that every home owner and other developers have to abide by is ludicrous if not ethically questionable and tempting possible litigation by many.

6) On page 14 Section 10(v) it states that all the parking doesn’t need to be in this tract of land or EVEN in the MVMU. So while every other business or developer in the other zones INCLUDING the Town Center have to deal with coming up with adequate parking. This ordinance affords this developer a complete free pass. The way this is written they can justify their parking requirements passed on the park and ride lots in Hackensack.

***********************************

It was opened to the public. I thought all of this was pertinent and critical information. I am a member of the public. I now open all of this to the public of Vernon. Nice thing about this format is you can say your piece and in its entirety with no interruptions (unless of course you have kids or pets).

One last note, as I have said before, I am not against redevelopment or these ordinances. I am Not in favor of the wrong ordinances for what the residents of Vernon want and need their town to be. I think this ordinance can be fixed. As it is written now and with the direction the current developers and our current consultants seem to keep heading that is not the case and it is “The Wrong Ordinance at the Wrong Time”.

In a previous part of this series I mentioned my problems with a temporary sign. One aspect of that was the possibility that another business/business person was responsible for making it an issue (ie took the photo and gave it to zoning). This type of thing unfortunately has happened more than once, though to others, and in neighboring towns as well.

The underlying reason for doing this type of thing could be that they were not allowed to do something so they tell on you, they are afraid of any competition from another business, they have an issue with you or your type of business, they just are that kind of individual(s), and/or they are [.fill in the blanks..]. Whatever the reason the possible negative impact they create on a small business will not improve their situation. If anything it only makes it worse for all as well as having the possibility of escalating into a township wide small business retaliation war. This benefits no one and hurts all including our residents (our customers). Luckily so far our town has been spared that level of futility.

In another previous part of this series I mentioned that some existing groups, organizations, and/or township regulations, practices, and policies were either not small business success friendly or appeared to be only friendly to their members even when parts of their membership were in different towns or even different states from our own.

To date it is extremely difficult for a small business owner to make a dent in the system. There to date is not really an entity or organization of the people, for the people, and by the people of small businesses in town. An entity that is working towards making them successful, helping them during difficult times beyond their control (flats flooded, bridge out, road construction, etc.), an entity assuring that their concerns are heard and not just yes’d to death, now and in any future plans for Vernon . An entity that a small business can either belong to or go to with problems, issues, suggestions, needs, or for help and advice. An entity that isn’t more concerned about them selves than the small business coming to them for help.

Some of the things mentioned above are part of what I refer to as the Bill Gates syndrome. A me, me, me, only if it benefits our business mode of operation. To me this promotes a two class, poor or rich economy with the loss of the middle income workers and businesses. It promotes or evolves into fewer businesses and big businesses that send their money out of town and whose owners live outside of our town. While this model may work in Vernon for some, it isn’t the only model nor is it the best model for Vernon, especially in today’s global economy. The enemy isn’t the other little business in town it’s losing all our business overseas and promoting an economy without a viable working middle class.

There is an alternative that can work for Vernon’s current small business owners (and resident). It’s not unique, it’s not really new, and businesses in other small towns are starting to successfully use it to revitalize their small business centers. Ironically enough the perfect model of it can be related back to the Bill Gates example.

In response to the “we’re the only game in town world” of Microsoft a grass roots movement called “Open Source” was created. It was based on a simple premise and an honorable one, ala non greedy philosophy. It has taken hold and now is running head to head if not away from Gates’ World. It is a model and philosophy that small businesses in Vernon can utilize to help build not only a successful economy but one that will attract others as a great place to do business AND a great place to live/visit.

Open source is simple. It’s not about me, me, making all the money. It is based on a FREE, yes FREE model. It is based on sharing the pie, on individuals working together for the better of all with the premise that this creates a bigger pie or more pies. It is based on the premise that one will become a recipient as well as a donator to it. It is based on the premise that having increased numbers and diversity of players creates more and more options for growth. The kicker is that many of those that didn’t get in it for monetary reasons now are reaping that benefit as well. This is the kind of attitude, philosophy, and organizational model that would benefit every current and future business as well as the residents of Vernon.

If one looks at the Chamber of Commerce that is what I would have expected it to do or be but as previously stated in a prior piece this doesn’t seem to be the case in Vernon or in some of the other neighboring towns either.

One aspect of this site is a grass roots movement to do away with the “all for one” business model and adopt instead a “one for all” model. So I’ll throw the gauntlet down to any current or prospective Vernon residents that are small business owners in Vernon to move in that direction and to join in together in a healthy co-operative and yet still competitive business venture. Yes it can be both. Tis the season and it’s one of my favorite movies so think “Miracle on 34th” as an example of it We PROMOTE EACH OTHER .. we CARE more ABOUT the CUSTOMER(residents) than the buck and as Mr. Macy said “if in so doing it increases our bottom line so be it”.

Welcome to:

SOBs of Vernon – that would be Small Owners of Business society of Vernon

Here are some other examples of it (this website is the first):

A) Cross marketing each other, like the Miracle on 34th street above. Yes we send people to other people and no it’s not blasphemy. One idea is a small business appreciation card/flyer. It has all Vernon SOBs on it and as you make a purchase at each one your card is marked. When you have visited all businesses on the card you get a given % off at the one of your choice.

B) Cross businesses co-operation to create a multiple business niche that would benefit all. Projects that perhaps none can manage or afford on their own but as a shared community business service would be doable. This could even just be the hosting of events.

C) Costs reductions through shared bulk purchases – as a small business the least amount of cash I can outlay each week for the lowest prices makes sense. Likewise reduced space and smaller but frequent inventory turns make sense. I’d rather not buy weeks worth of paper cups or other paper products but bulk savings causes me to. However there are 8 other SOBs in Vernon who are doing the same thing. One case split 8 ways, one week inventory, bulk cost but only outlaid weekly, etc. Travel and gas savings shared. Is this a new niche for another small part time business in town doing this as part of our society (the pie just grew bigger).

E) Shared-reduced costs on flyers and advertising / shared-reduced costs on single internet provider doing all our hosting web design / shared-reduced costs on promotional events / / all of these being done by other members of SOBs – money is flowing within the town promoting each other rather than out of the town promoting corporate CEO’s.

F) How? Where? Help? And other issues now have a place to be shared, discussed, resolved, and escalated as need be including fixing ordinances, regulations, etc that are having negative impacts. An alternative to small business owners having to deal with issues and the costs of those issues on their own with little or no outside help.

G) Not turning those savings into higher profits but turning them into competitive lower costs at a local small business so our residents have variety and local shopping.

And more things like these. The mind set here is to provide more businesses and businesses that have lower costs for our residents. This in turn provides reason for them to use more local small businesses. I believe that many residents would prefer to patronize local businesses that were part of this. To those who say it’s pie in the sky I refer again to the Open Source example. This is a way for Vernon’s small businesses to be able to effectively compete with the larger corporate businesses. It helps level the field for smaller businesses.

This concludes this series. If you are interested to be part of this or just want to provide feedback on it please utilize this forum or send an email to sobs@vernonsown.com. Thanks and remember “Shop Local SOBs”

P.S. I know many residents do support and purposely support our small businesses … To all of you a very sincere THANK YOU!

Just because we have a Town Council doesn’t mean we have a town plan. Just because we have a Planning Board doesn’t mean we have a town plan. Just because we have a Town Planner doesn’t mean we have a Town Plan. I don’t mean we don’t have plans, heck we have 5 districts in our proposed Town Center Redevelopment zone, never ending (ah, beginning) plans for the Mountain Creek Village, and plans out the wazoo for the McAfee Twin Redevelopment Zones (even the church has plans for building a hotel there). Yet with all these there still is no “REAL” town plan.

The town council, town planning board, and definitely our town planner “just don’t get it”. Some of these are good people, with good intentions, and that work very hard for us. It is just that, in my humble opinion, overall the town plans are more influenced by the developers, a few local business interests, big $’s pie in the sky paybacks, and a credit card mentality. They are not based on a real sensible business plan that encompasses all of what Vernon IS, what Vernon CAN BE, and what Vernon- ite’s WANT it to BE. There is no plan of the people, by the people, and for (with the best interests of) the people of Vernon. A plan designed for today, for tomorrow, and for generations to come.

A real plan has short term goals (5year plan), long term goals (20yr plan), and is based on a mission statement and a VISION. We do not have that.

Ok what of the Vernon as a Four Season Resort Destination idea? If I recall correctly Neil Desmond said that he doesn’t know exactly what that means or words to that effect at a past town council meeting. I believe he was referring to the unclear image and lack of a concrete definition that our becoming a four season resort destination implies. That still would just be one piece of a total plan and vision. We are more than that and we are not that first. As I stated in “VernonIs” and as Thomas (Vernon Taxpayers Assoc) stated we are other things before that. That is one small piece of what Vernon is. We are missing a plan that integrates everyone and everything. Not just the resort part but all the parts and all the pieces. Not just resort development but all economic development including existing small businesses toward a single Vernon VISION. I don’t believe we can achieve this without some major fundamental in house changes. We have a new town manager with the background and track record. That’s a start but she reports to and takes guidance from the council.

Relating this back to Vernon’s DSBS (dying small business syndrome) many small businesses have left town or closed. In fact many of them were in Legends and/or Mountain Creek. Action Park (Mtn. Creek) had a village back in the day. Legends and Great Gorge were thriving packed resort destinations and it WENT AWAY. Just building more and bigger ones is not going to fix that. If anything we will be left with less of what Vernon was and more of what Legends became.

Other small businesses, like mine, are struggling and fighting just to be open day by day and many like ours are doing it by working other jobs. Those that have failed, left, or are here and struggling or even those succeeding need to be part of coming up with a Vision and Total Plan for Vernon. They need to be part of the investigation as to our past and our present conditions, concerns, and goals for small business and economic prosperity in Vernon.

Based on my observations and questioning of other small business owners our planner has not and is not doing that. Our council has not and is not doing that. What they apparently are doing is bending over backwards to provide for those who would be involved in any of the redevelopment zones including the oft mentioned Pilot programs.

The ironic (sadistic?) part is that many of the failed businesses were in the areas that are now targeted for redevelopment. Would it not make sense to seek them out to learn why and possibly prevent it from happening again. My God three years ago the Appalachian had clients lined up to go into it and as anyone who’s driven by knows now there isn’t a single commercial entity in it. The one restaurant that was going in backed out too.

Another aspect of the total plan concept, or lack there of, has to do with the extermination of existing and new small businesses. Without a coherent vision and plan for all of Vernon instead of all businesses enhancing and creating economic growth and opportunity there is the very real potential for a pie that is to large, to fast, and kills off not only the existing small businesses but also the new ones just starting in the new zones.

The most important aspect of a plan for Vernon is it must encompass everyone. Other towns across the state and across the country have been revitalizing their town centers using the Main Street Project methodology pioneered by the Main Street Institute. Newton is one of those towns. Main Street in Sussex is also kick starting itself back to life utilizing aspects of this methodology.

You have to involve everyone and everything. You have to look at everything that’s wrong and everything that’s right. You have to have buy in by everyone and cooperative cross development. This means the towns’ people, the schools, the businesses, the … everyone. We need everyone including any developer to come to the table for the good of all and not just themselves. We need a Vision that everyone supports and believes will be in their best interests. We need a holistic plan to get to that vision including long and short term goals (plans).

In the previous paragraph I mentioned we need everyone coming to the table including the developer(s). This is another example of the township just doesn’t get it. In brief chats I had with our town planner and from what was said and done with the McAfee Redevelopment area it appears they feel this isn’t possible in any of the zones.

Mom had a great way to get me to the table. It was simple. Ok, don’t show up for dinner when I call. We’ll have dinner without you. And she meant it! The township over and over and today still instead is willing to fix whatever, wherever, and whenever the developers want for dinner. And we all know who ends up with the food bill – Vernon Taxpayers. No we need a single Vision for all with all on board to get there including all of our existing small businesses.

Last example of Township doesn’t get it relates back to Part I of this series. The council needs to be proactively and adamantly working to do what it can to help existing small businesses especially in times of crisis and hardship. Like maybe the road construction that hammered businesses on route 94 or the washed out bridge on the flats earlier this year. The council, the chamber of commerce, rotary, other organizations should have gotten directly involved to help and show their support. Working to find out what else is wrong or making it difficult for business in Vernon and then working to alleviate those issues as Newton’s town council did with sandwich signage and Sussex is doing with it’s Main Street area should be a priority. There has been talk of an economic panel or board. This needs to be more than talk it needs to happen ASAP. It needs to be part of getting a real vision and economic plan in place for all Vernon and not just the redevelopment zones.

Next up in PartIV – Small Businesses Need to Unite not Fight!(or It’s up to us too!)

Mad as in reaching new heights of insanity even for us. It’s a double reference though as I’m also referring to the anger and/or animosity that we see more and more of. Some of our forums appear to be rampant with it.

Let me share my example of the madness. I’m a small business owner. I work 17 hours a day 6 days a week. On my Sabbath I rest, I only work 15 hours. Need a sense of humor in all this madness.

In an effort to help kick off our business we planned on running a commuter special for two mornings. Made up a 2′x 3′ sign saying “Thur 6am to 8am, Fri 8am to 10am, Commuter Freebies, Coffee + Treats”. No more, no less. It was just black lettering on a white sign. It was put out at 6am. By 9am someone had taken a photo of it, printed it out, and put it on the zoning officers’ desk. We were notified it had to go?

This isn’t unique to our town as Wantage/Sussex and Newton have shown up on forums or in the papers over the same kind of things. Also in all fairness to our zoning officer it apparently does violate current town code. In all fairness the ZO is treating everyone the same. BUT…………..

I’m really worried by this!

Someone noticed, photographed, printed, and delivered the photo - all within 3 hours of our putting it out. Zoning responded all within the 3 hours.

Sorry but this is just too much like a totalitarian state.

I’m worried too that someone saw/felt the need to do this. I’m scared as to what may have prompted them. Was it another business owner threatened by competition so they “immediately reported” us? Another business owner that had the same type of thing done to them so they “immediately reported us”? Someone who works for the town and felt it their duty so they “reported us”. A resident that is waiting and watching or just keyed to this type of thing that they realized the violation and they “immediately reported us”.

To me every one of these scenarios is cause for concern over our town’s health especially as it applies to small business. Aren’t we preparing to spend tax payer’s money on economic development and haven’t we hired consultants & engineers to work on economic development within our town. Are we not preparing to spend 100’s of thousands if not millions of taxpayer’s dollars to create ratables in our town let alone putting them in Pilot programs.

Yet … Oh my God .. An illegal small business sign .. Notify the authorities … Squelch it immediately.

I’m not the only one who has been impacted. I know of at least 3 other small businesses near the (er) town center that have faced similar situations. Swoop down following of the letter of the code with close to if not total intolerance to our trying to keep our businesses alive. Sad part is one of my reactions was “but I know of a sign over”… fortunately I felt making another individuals/businesses situation difficult is not justified nor would it have done anything to help mine.

There are solutions within the system. I’m afraid though that unlike the blinking marquee sign at the bank getting a special exemption is not doable (nor should it be). I’m working day and night. I’m tapped and stretched way beyond paying lawyers/etc to get a variance for me or paying for a permit for a “two DAY” sign!!

I did read that Newton’s Town Council passed a “sandwich/specials” sign ordinance realizing and responding to their towns small businesses needs. Unfortunately again I’m already working 2 jobs and that would in essence become a third. It appears though that from what I’ve seen at Town Council/Planning meetings even our Chamber of Commerce can’t make headway against the PotterVille (It’s a wonderful Life) state our town has fallen prey to.

I’m not above trying though and will work with anyone else who is willing!

Fighting, ratting, being “MAD” at each other is not the answer. And this applies to so many of the venues that have been showing up on some of the local forums. Hate begets hate, violence begets violence, intolerance begets intolerance and our town needs to get past that. Our society needs to get past that. Our soldiers are fighting in the midst of a nation whose hate and intolerance towards each other continues seemingly forever. Let us honor them by not getting caught up in the same thing at home. The Madness can once again become Gladness where “hello”, a “smile”, and a sincere “may I help you” abound.

Fortunately it’s not totally gone. In fact I have been the recipient of many who were willing to come to the aide a new small business owner. Fred & Shaun at Homestyle Farms, Joe at JP & Sons, Russ at Masters Plumbing, Bill & John at BOZ electric, Ron at McFee Hardware, Moe at A&A, Dean and Brian Decker at Decker Excavating, John & Terry at UPSstore, Nuri at Lox of Bagels, and yes even a lawyer the honorable James Zimmerman. I offer my sincere thanks and appreciation to them and any others that I did not mention. Likewise to those residents who buy local in an effort to support small business owners in our town.

As another step in that direction, as one small business owner to another, may I offer “Congratulations” to Place by the Tracks Deli on celebrating their 10th anniversary this year. May we collaborate, coordinate, cooperate, and be in healthy competition with each other over the next 10 years in order to provide our current customers and new customers with options and reasons to come to our town. May we find ways to benefit each other and any other small business owners in our town creating a town where the only MAD is the one that means “Make A Difference” in a positive way.

I truly believe, as I wrote in my “Vernon Is” piece that the success of this town is in small business owners, home owners, towns people, students, groups, everyone realizing we are all in this together and the only solution is one that encompasses and includes us ALL as active participants - developing, being a part of, and owning its future. It doesn’t have to become Potterville. More about this in Part III - The Township Just Doesn’t Get It (or Just because we have a Town Planner doesn’t mean we have a Town Plan).

Serious illness in Town - “Dying Small Businesses Syndrome” or DSBS

It appears to have been around for some time in Vernon and other municipalities including Wantage, Sussex, and Newton. It seems to primarily attack unknown start ups although existing small businesses also have fallen prey to it as well. It has mutated and become more deadly as of late.

Being a member of the Chamber of Commerce or Rotary has not to my knowledge offered much if any protection from it. The Town Council to date has no cure or preventative measures against it. Developers and some of the small moguls seem to be able to create a resistant barrier to it though the small business owners that move into their units are not necessarily guaranteed immunity.

Several small businesses that have moved to other locales has reversed the effects and in several cases actually created healthy thriving businesses. Also while it has taken its toll in other townships Wantage/Sussex and Newton small businesses are starting to develop immunity and or have developed a workable vaccination for it. This reversal is taking place in both of their Main Street areas.

All humorous tongue in cheek or not, analogies aside, DSBS is happening in Vernon. One of my biggest fears is that the new Main Street, and other proposed areas, will not be immune to it. Actually they are poised to increase it.

Some of the issues as I know of, by hearing from others or from direct observation, will be covered in a series of blogs (articles).

Part I - Chamber of Commerce / Rotary / others similar organizations?

Issues:

The Chamber of Commerce (CoC) and the Rotary(less knowledge of on my part) will not get involved or take a stand in politics or political issues. I have heard from different current or past members of these organizations that they replied “We don’t/won’t get involved with politics” on pertinent business issues.

These groups appear to be self serving more than all township businesses serving.

If you are a member great if not then join (pay) and you can be one of us. Just look at the directory recently published by the CoC or the listing on their website. It includes only members even if those members are in other towns, counties, or even states. This is the “Complete Directory of the Greater Vernon Area” OK they covered the outside Vernon part with “Greater” but “Complete Directory”. And they want part of the money to promote Tourism in the town. Think not with this kind of one sided promoting.

When you start a small business from my experience in two locations in town and from talking to others the only contact will be accidental. A member may stop at your place or run into you somewhere and suggest you to join them. You are not welcomed into the business community or the town by these groups. Seems the primary concern is you become one of them not – how can we help your business make it. Both of these points seem like a kind of “pay to play” to me.

The cost is the same irregardless of if you have a few employees or a few hundred. It is independent of your revenue so the cost is the same irregardless of if your sales are $30K or $300k.

They aren’t proactively directly involved in what’s going on and again especially so if your not a member. Even when they try to get involved they carry no weigh (ie have no influence). I was at a council meeting where the CoC raised a concern that the councils reply was basically ho hum. Remember all the construction on 94 and the bridge outage on the Flats. Think that didn’t’ pose major issues for the local businesses in these areas. CoC, Rotary, TC – all nada with help and/or assistance.

The recent description I was given suits “they’re a good old boys club”.

Suggested Solutions:

I’ve researched and looked at what other towns/states chambers have in place and its common practice to be charged membership dues relative to your size. After all someone like Mountain Creek can do a larger portion of their fair share to help other businesses in town than can a newbie mom and pop store. I’d suggest even making the first year a freebie until a business gets on its feet and past that first years start up costs.

As a welcome basket to the neighborhood gesture they should actively introduce themselves and their members businesses to your business. At the very least the officers should make a group effort to do this. This would be helpful to their members and to the new business.

I’m sorry but politics are what’s making or should I say breaking this town and everyone’s pocketbooks. Get involved. Get VERY involved. Stand up for businesses. That certainly would have given me more of a reason to join.

Need to make, as does the town council, meeting more readily accessible to members. Current and ex members I’ve talked with listed this as a real negative.

The directory should list all businesses in the town (ship) especially if you’re asking the taxpayers (town council) to assist you with funding from tourism. They should be actively be promoting business, again all business, in town not just the members. If the town becomes a thriving business center then everyone will reap the rewards.

The self serving selfishness needs to stop here and on other issues that will be addressed in the follow up articles to this one.

VernonsOwn is, albeit way to slowly but staffing is limited, working on posting all businesses on it’s site and has created a “Local Businesses” webpage and a discussion forum (In Good Company or Bad) to get this kind of thing rolling. We also are starting a new organization aimed at helping the small owners of businesses (SOB’s).

Next article in this muti-part small business series – A Town Gone Mad (totalitarian?)

MORE of the SAME –

We just can’t $$AFFORD$$ more of the same. High (er) taxes are not the problem in Vernon. They are the symptom. Loss of and struggling small businesses are not the problem. These too are just symptoms. Not having a thriving sustainable tourist area isn’t the problem, cost overruns, a town manager supposedly gone wild, a town held hostage by debt and developers, an empty new hotel, a white elephant temporary (???) lodge, and a blight elephant Legends hotel are not the problem. All of these are just symptoms and they did not happen overnight but they will continue and grow until the underlying real problem is fixed.

We no longer are a town “of the people, by the people, and for the people” of Vernon. In Star Trek episode-eology our planet (township) is really run by Landru and Landru is broken. Unlike Star Trek Spock, McCoy, and Kirk aren’t going to beam down and fix it for us. The good news though is “WE” can. However Landru is going to use its hold on its people and do everything in its power to keep us from doing so. I for one have had enough already and hopefully have the other residents of our township. It is time we swap out the bad components and reset the programming on those that are left in place. It is time we turn Landru off and once again are run “by the people, of the people, and for the people” of Vernon.

I stated in Part II of this election series that I thought both parties have good candidates. I am not so sure anymore. My fear is that the individuals running may indeed not be able to escape, or want to, Landru’s control. I say this because I sent a copy of part II to the incumbents and the rest of the current council members prior to posting it. I did this as a courtesy and to offer them a chance, on or off the record, to respond to and/or correct anything I was saying. That was a week ago. Not one single reply. They obviously are busy with elections but the fact that all chose to not respond or to post anything on our forum as I also offered as an option could be taken as a confirmation that “Landru” has them fearful of doing so after all they are of the body.

For the coming election there is not time to change our current form of government. If there were I would suggest that it not be possible for the cards to be stacked the way they were when the previous town council members stepped down. I would further suggest that at no time should our council be made up of only members from one party. We have a 5 member council so there should be only up to 3 members of any one party at any time. This would allow for a 3 or more party council as well. I realize this is blasphemy and some would say impractical but given our previous council makeup it is necessary to protect us from a Landru state of government. For now the only possible way to prevent it is to vote for a non all one party council.

In the last part of this election series part IV – I’ll say more about fixing the problem and my appraisal, not quite picks, of the candidates as it relates to fixing our town. Then a series on how to get us out of this mess. For now I’ll simply say “More of the Same - NO WAY - Landru must GO”.

In part one I mentioned that both parties had some good candidates but with the machine in place it’s a mute point. In my reply to a question asked by Rosa Kasper of the Advertiser I said “I think the type of government we have in place could and should work well. It is the actual execution … that’s killing us”.

Attending recent council meetings and reading things the candidates have recently told reporters or have said at debates only reinforced this opinion. I just do not believe the current council members are making decisions independently as representatives for the people they are supposed to represent. The Town Council’s decisions, and a few others directly impacting the redevelopment zones, are not of the people, by the people, or for the people of Vernon. I’ll take that one step further and say in some instances their decisions are not even consistent with their own stated thoughts/beliefs.

A recent post on another forum with regards to referendums asked us to “Vote for the people who will think and act as you do when making decisions about the town”. Likewise Mr. McLauglin said “we elect the people we believe will make the right decisions for our township. Mr. Oroho believes “voters elect leaders to make decisions on their behalf and trust them to make informed and intelligent decisions. Mr. Oroho and Mr. Carson both see the possible need for referendums when “certain decisions may be difficult to decide on behalf of the voters’ or “will have the potential to impact Vernon on a significant level”.

Forgive me but a Town Center redevelopment plan that includes a Main Street district, sewers, a possible relocation of a firehouse (municipal building? DPW?), and now “5” other districts more than qualifies for that!

Yet not only wasn’t it put on a referendum but on the second reading only three of the five members were present to pass it. Yes, that is a quorum, and yes the two missing members had valid reasons but as an issue that will impact Vernon for now and generations to come shouldn’t it have been pushed to the next meeting with all present or after the election with the voters showing support behind you. Yet at this meeting and prior meetings I couldn’t help but get the impression that our current Mayor was pushing this through come hell or high water. Her resounding “Yes” vocalization immediately following the vote was kind of like what someone does after looking at their holiday bonus check.

Here is another inconsistency I don’t get. I mentioned, provided literature, and reams of documentation related to building a world class green eco-tourist and resident attracting town center. Information on recent legislation signed by our governor, NJ mayor’s council directives on it, Rutgers and Farleigh Dickenson curriculums for it, an already written ordinance from another town on it, and the possibilities of grants as well as professional and scholastic design help for it out the kazoo. Our mayor’s feeling and reassurance was that developers will do the right thing. What? At one meeting Mr. Carew did ask if I had included it on my survey but not one of our current members held up, voted against, or pressed having it added to our Town Center or other redevelopment plans.

Yet according to Mr. McLaughlin “we need to have strict guidelines set to keep the natural environment in place and will not allow high-density over-development” and “I am pro environment”. Likewise Mr. Oroho feels that “we need to preserve our unique environmental resources”, “to protect our natural beauty”, and “to improve the overall quality of life for its citizens”. Mr. Carson while not yet a member of the town council would like to see ”the redevelopment areas become wonderful family destinations”, “to augment the eco-tourism industry”, and “maintain the aesthetics’ of the township:.

So with these members of their parties’ ticket feeling this way then why wasn’t it a priority prior to the just pasted Town Center redevelopment ordinance. All of them reiterated the need to control sprawl too yet the T.C. redevelopment plan grew from Main Street to Main Street and “5” sub districts.

Here’s the last piece of food for thought. The current mayor can’t even run again within her party as the voters spoke with their votes during the primary yet at every meeting I’ve attended she acted, and they allowed her to, like she in fact was the Mayor of a town not using the Faulkner system of government. This is one of the reasons why I made the statement that “it is the actual execution of our type of government… that’s killing us”. The other piece being the previously mentioned sense that members are voting, at least as far as the redevelopment goes, as someone/something in the background is deciding rather than as the individuals they represent themselves to be per their words.

(more to follow in part III)