Awesome Job New Milford

Awesome job New Milford!

So-called (and apparently self-professed) expert David Kinsey, appeared to be punch drunk by the time New Milford residents were done with him this past Thursday at the Zoning Board meeting. So much so that he either temporarily forgot that he had profusely taken the “inherently beneficial” stance for its ability to reduce NM’s affordable housing obligation … OR … he had gotten so worn down that he finally confessed that  THERE IS NO NET REDUCTION.

Wow, really? This could put a hitch in Hekemian’s case. If there is no net reduction of NM's affordable housing obligation once Hekemian does his dirty deed on the UW property, then exactly how is it that this abomination is "inherently beneficial" to NM? By Kinsey's own admission the project would not merit inherently beneficial use status without the affordable housing element. It was bizarre.

Even more bizarre, after a team huddle during the break, Kinsey was recalled and in a complete 180° turnaround claimed that there WOULD be a net reduction (based on exclusions…and refinements…and such). He seemed sure enough of himself when he testified only minutes before about there being NO net reduction, even confirming his remarkable revelation to the stunned Zoning Board, just in case we didn't hear him right.

Which left me wondering what the heck transpired during the break. Did DelVecchio have to remind his own "expert" that there would in fact be a net reduction?  Did they change the mathematical formula?  Did they wave smelling salts under Kinsey's nose and he miraculously recovered his senses?

Leading up to this point, round after round of questioning from some exceptionally competent New Milford residents exposed flaws in this "expert" whose validity in my opinion gloriously collapsed under scrutiny.

All in all Kinsey admitted that:

• He hadn’t looked at the data for New Milford;
• He is not aware of whether the population of Bergen County has increased or decreased;
• He didn’t check to see if there is rent control in NM;
• He hadn’t been to the site -- but he’s been by the site (maybe on his way to Burger King or something who knows);
• He hadn't reviewed the site plan;
• He hadn't reviewed the applicant's filed applications;

WHAT?!

In my head, a loud scratch sound as the music came to a screeching halt –

He hadn’t even reviewed the application before the Board?  You're kidding right?

No, no, he isn't kidding. "That was not my assignment," he says. "I was focusing on NM's low and moderate housing obligation." 

Seems as if EVERYTHING was beyond the scope of Kinsey's assignment. His expertise therefore has nothing to do with his planning credentials, or his Ph.D., etc. as we were led to believe, but rather it is questionably limited to what he was tasked with by Hekemian -- which was to testify that the affordable housing component of Hekemian's proposed development is an inherently beneficial use.  A task that Kinsey revealed is a first for him since it hadn’t arisen before in his professional career.

A whole lot of hearing time has been focused on this affordable housing issue, but I'm not sure I understand why this avenue would be Hekemian’s magical key.  Exactly why is it that our need for 40 or so homes (by Kinsey’s complexly vague and contradictory account) would open New Milford up to having to also be stuck with an apartment complex, a 4-story parking garage, a ShopRite, a bank, a massive amount of traffic and pollution, a real threat to our school children, and a sh_t ton of impervious cover?

NM resident Al Alonso pointed out the ludicrousness of solely focusing on the inherently beneficial use of the affordable housing element by hypothesizing a scenario in which a Gentleman's Club is built right there next to the high school factoring in the affordable housing part to meet NM’s obligation.  The excellent point being that the affordable housing element of the project is not enough to justify the project, when the downside so thoroughly outweighs the upside.

Bringing home the same point Jose Camacho asked Kinsey if he had a disease and there was a pill that would cure the disease, would it make sense to take the pill? Kinsey agreed that it would. Then he asked Kinsey, "What if the side effect is it’s going to kill you?"  Uh yeah, what about that Kinsey?  The analogy is perfect. Kinsey of course had no answer.  Just a blank look with a lot of eye blinking.

Something is wrong here, and I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that EVERYONE KNOWS IT. A single truth is being isolated from the multitude of other truths that exist, simply because it serves the end goal of a man with a lot of money.

Kinsey analyzed this application (the one he hadn't read) based on three of four standards.  The analysis is incomplete.  And for good reason. Because if he added that fourth standard into his analysis, it would change the outcome of his "expert" opinion. Is it ethical to pick and choose like that? Where does Kinsey's code of ethics as defined by AICP and required of its members come into this equation?

Taken from AICP Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct,

http://www.planning.org/ethics/ethicscode.htm :

We shall always be conscious of the rights of others. We shall have special concern for the long-range consequences of present actions. We shall pay special attention to the interrelatedness of decisions. We owe diligent, creative, and competent performance of the work we do in pursuit of our client or employer's interest. Such performance, however, shall always be consistent with our faithful service to the public interest. We shall contribute to the development of, and respect for, our profession by improving knowledge and techniques, making work relevant to solutions of community problems.

No evidence of that here pal, which possibly explains why Kinsey is not proud of all the assignments he has worked on.

And then there's Dipple the engineer who uses antiquated maps that don’t match NM’s reality, leaving New Milford residents to believe that Dipple doesn't give a darn about them and their situation. 

But he's following the rules. Yes you are Dipple. The rules of law. But what about the rules of decency?

Dipple has the nerve to say that any water added to the Hackensack River will be but "a drop in the bucket," as if we can afford another drop, and as if he hadn’t already testified that the water added to the river would in fact be LESS after this development.

Then there's DelVecchio with his list of demands.  Poll the Board to insure the INTEGRITY of the process. Note the appearance of a colleague (who happens to also be a NM resident and who I'm pretty sure DelVecchio is afraid of -- why else would he single him out like that if he didn't present some kind of threat to his case?)

And when Anna Leone remarked on the possibility that updated maps would be coming out, DelVecchio revealed his inner softie by saying:  "The filing of this complaint takes precedence even if they update the maps."   Yes, yes, Antimo, the filing of this complaint takes precedence even if they update the maps.  That's the important point here.

It's no wonder a neighborhood group has formed!  And DelVecchio with his intimidation tactics just wants to make sure everyone is aware that he is aware of its existence. “Freedom of Assembly” someone spoke out from the audience, and assemble they did.

New Milford residents did themselves proud.  Each person who got up there exposed another weakness or despicableness of Kinsey's and Dipple's positions and testimonies. It was fascinating to watch.

Karl Schaffenberger had noted Kinsey's use of the word fairness, and asked him, "Where in all of this does NM get its slice of fairness?"  When Kinsey tried to pawn the injustice off on the government, Karl said:  "Have you noticed when government starts spreading fairness around everyone gets a little less of it?"

John Rutledge told Kinsey that he "has no sense of what this development is going to mean to New Milford."  And he couldn't be any more right.

There were many heroes:  Al Alonso, Lori Barton, Ulises Cabrera, Jose Camacho, John DeSantis, Michael Gadaleta, Lucas Hilly, Anna Leone, Mary McElroy, Miriam Pickett, John Rutledge, Karl Schaffenberger, a fine young man who spoke at the end whose name I regret not getting, SOD individually and collectively, Councilman Ashley's attorney Marc Liebman, and all the residents who took time out to make an appearance at this very important Zoning Board meeting.

To be continued…

p.s.  A side-perk to following this drama is seeing Democrats and Republicans unite.  The game of politics is dropped for the greater cause of preserving our hometown of New Milford.

p.s.s.  Joe Loonam, Peter Rebsch, and Scott Sproviero are assets to the Zoning Board and to the town of New Milford.

p.s.s.s. I'm sorry if I've missed anyone, and Lucas, I'm pretty sure I've misspelled your last name!