News

Many of us reside in Westfield because of the charming homes that line our attractive streets.  Having made what, for many, is the largest investment of our lives, we expect to be able to update and improve our properties as we like, subject of course to existing zoning laws and building codes.

Over the years, many Westfield residents have decided to preserve their homes and neighborhoods, and the Town’s historic preservation ordinance gave them the tools to do so.  Individual homeowners could seek historic designation from the Town, and residents of an entire neighborhood could also do so, as was the case decades ago when residents of Kimball Avenue voluntarily created the historic district between Elm and Lawrence.

To date, these admirable decisions to preserve appropriate homes and neighborhoods as historic have been freely made by the affected property owners.  But that is about to change.  The Brindle Administration is amending the Town’s historic preservation ordinance to eliminate the consent of the affected homeowner as a requirement for their property being designated as historic.  In other words, the Town may designate your home or neighborhood as an historic landmark, whether you like it or not.

Mayor Brindle is giving power to an unelected body of political appointees to tell Westfield residents that their house is “historic” and, if so, to restrict homeowners’ rights.  Do you want to paint your house?  Change your front door?  Replace a window?  Sorry — if the Town deems your house to be historic you can’t, unless the Town lets you.

And how does the Brindle Administration propose to define historic?  Very broadly, and not just to include older homes.  In fact, the Town can classify a brand new home as historic under the standards in the proposed ordinance.  For example, does your house or neighborhood, new or old:

• “represent a significant period in the architectural and social history of the municipality”?
• have “a unique character resulting from its architectural style”?
• “embody a distinguishing characteristic or an architectural type valuable as representative of a period, style, or method of construction”?
• “represent a work of a builder, designer, artist, or architect whose individual style significantly influenced the architectural history of the municipality”?

Or is your house or neighborhood, new or old:

• the “embodiment of distinguishing characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, architecture, or engineering”?
• “identifiable with a person or persons who significantly enriched the Town, State, or Nation”?
• “identifiable with the work of a builder, designer, artist, architect, or landscape architect whose work has influenced the development of the Town, State, or Nation”?
• “imbued with traditional or legendary lore” (whatever that means)?

If the Town determines that any one of these standards is met, congratulations, you live in an historic home or district!  No matter that you didn’t know, don’t care, or disagree — you will not be able to change any exterior feature on your house unless you submit an application for a “certificate of appropriateness” and obtain approvals from multiple municipal bodies and officials.

Residents of Wychwood, the Gardens, Indian Forest, Stoneleigh Park, Boulevard, Manor Park, and other neighborhoods, beware.  It used to take at least 80% of you to agree to become an historic district; soon it will be just a majority of the Town Council.  The same is true if you live in any home, new or old, that Mayor Brindle may view as “representative of a period in the architectural or social history of Westfield,” or having a valuable “distinguishing characteristic” or “architectural type.”  Concerned?  You should be.

The preservation of truly historic homes is a worthy pursuit, but it should not come at the expense of fundamental private property rights.  Private property taken for public use without compensation, including unilaterally imposing substantial restrictions on the use of that property, is not only unconstitutional, but offensive.  Westfield deserves better.

If, like us, you respect historic preservation but oppose the idea of unwillingly being told that your home is “historic” and then being restricted from changing any exterior aspect of it without begging the Town for permission, let Mayor Brindle know at mayorbrindle@westfieldnj.gov.

JoAnn Neylan, Chairwoman

Westfield Town Republican Committee

This week, we conclude our examination of the many problems with PILOTs and the tax abatement programs that the Brindle Administration recently set in motion in Westfield.  It is an examination that we would have expected the Mayor and Council to openly undertake with input from all residents, preferably after the global pandemic ended.  Unfortunately, Mayor Brindle chose a different path, one lacking in both transparency and public participation.

As a reminder, the quoted excerpts below are taken directly from the 2010 report of the NJ State Comptroller on the abuses arising from PILOTs and tax abatement programs, readable here:  https://www.nj.gov/comptroller/news/docs/tax_abatement_report.pdf.  Emphasis has been added below, but the hard facts have not been changed.  Those facts should cause all Westfield residents serious concern.

“[I]n practice, there is essentially no state oversight and monitoring of the granting of individual tax abatements in New Jersey….  These circumstances have resulted in a lack of transparency and accountability regarding the awarding of abatements….”

“For school districts, the impact is more direct.  School districts often receive a large portion of traditional property tax collections” – in Westfield approximately 60%.  “As a result, abatements have a large impact on school funding and the tax burden of other taxpayers in the municipality….  When a property tax abatement occurs, the school district receives no portion of the new PILOT revenue and thus loses out on the new wealth of the municipality….”

“The new development may also add new, unfunded service burdens on the schools.  The cost of these burdens must either be absorbed by raising rates on other taxpayers or by paring back services.”

Not only do tax abatement programs for commercial property owners and developers increase the taxes paid by residents, they do not guarantee any benefit to downtown shops, restaurants, and other businesses.  Downtown property owners and developers favored with Mayor Brindle’s tax breaks are under no obligation to pass the savings along in the form of lower rents to their tenants, many of whom are small businesses.  Doing so might help fill some of the many empty storefronts in our downtown.

Not all towns have been duped by the false promises of PILOTs.  Last year, the Bridgewater Township Council rejected their mayor’s proposed PILOT for the redevelopment of roughly 62 acres in that town.  One Bridgewater councilmember stated that as a matter of fairness property tax distribution should occur at the regular rate for all property owners, not just a few favored commercial owners and developers; another argued that developers should be paying the town more money, not less.  We agree.

How many of these serious problems with PILOTs and other tax abatements did the Mayor raise and discuss with the public before our entire downtown was declared blighted?  Shouldn’t we be concerned about the significant potential identified in the Comptroller’s report for “cronyism,” “corruption,” “lost revenue,” “waste and abuse”?  What pros and cons did the Town Council or the Planning Board meaningfully debate before rubber-stamping the Mayor’s plan?

Is this how you expect to be governed by your local officials?  Do you prefer that critical decisions about the future of Westfield’s precious downtown be made during a global pandemic, with residents in lockdown?  Do you want tax revenues diverted from our schools primarily for the benefit of developers, with homeowners picking up the tab?  We don’t.  Westfield deserves better.  If you agree, let Mayor Brindle know at mayorbrindle@westfieldnj.gov.

We are extremely saddened by the tragic death of George Floyd. The criminal acts that led to his death are disturbing at every level. We stand with all those who condemn this hateful act that runs counter to the values of our nation and our unalienable rights to liberty and equality under the law. 

We must always stand for equal justice and protection for all people. We reject any form of bigotry or racism. We stand in solidarity with those who are victim to injustice. We honor the memory of George Floyd with actions of respect, tolerance, and understanding.

Last week, we began to expose the many problems with PILOTs and the tax abatement programs that the Brindle Administration recently set in motion in Westfield, without any meaningful public debate or input, and during a pandemic.

The harms that can be caused by such programs are detailed in a report published by the NJ State Comptroller, https://www.nj.gov/comptroller/news/docs/tax_abatement_report.pdf.  The following excerpts are quoted directly from the Comptroller’s report, with emphasis added.  They should cause all Westfield residents serious concern.

“Tax abatements result in significant foregone revenue and introduce [property] tax inequities….  PILOTs do little to help other local entities reliant on tax revenue, such as … school districts.”

“Despite these high stakes, … little is done to monitor the use of such abatements, to ensure that they are appropriately awarded, or to determine whether they achieve their purposes.  Our review of tax abatement practices … found numerous weaknesses in the regulation, implementation, and oversight of these programs….”  [As a result,] “[t]ax abatements should be used carefully and sparingly given the multitude of pitfalls, their far-reaching impact, and the reality that exemption from taxation is a departure from the normal allocation of tax obligations.”

“While abatement of taxes otherwise owed is uniformly positive from the perspective of the developer, it results … in lost revenue for government entities.  In addition, these financial arrangements can create tax inequity and present opportunities for unfair favoritism or cronyism.”

“In the broadest sense, abatement programs are meant to encourage rehabilitation and redevelopment of distressed areas.…  However, abatement programs can also create inequities and the potential for waste and abuse.  The inequities stem from shifting tax burdens, while the potential for waste and abuse lies in the process of choosing developers and projects.”

“For example, … under long-term abatement arrangements, property tax collections on the development – which normally are split among several entities – are eliminated, and 95% of the negotiated PILOT is kept by the municipality, with 5% for the county and nothing for the school district.”

Are you concerned yet Westfield?  You should be.  Not only is tax revenue for our schools lost, increased population from the property improvement or development may result in higher educational expenses.  The rest of us will have to pick up the tab on both ends.

As a reminder, in addition to declaring our entire downtown as an area in need of rehabilitation and eligible for five-year tax abatements, in March the Brindle Administration began the process to declare all Town parking lots, the Rialto building, and the Lord & Taylor site as areas in need of redevelopment, which allows for longer-term, 30-year tax abatements.  These extended hand-outs can bring additional trouble.

“Cronyism may emerge in the approval process of long-term abatements, further compounding these inequities.  Cronyism provides unfair advantages to favored developers and, in the process, can lead to less beneficial terms for the municipality and other affected parties.  Historical evidence of corruption of the redevelopment process in New Jersey confirms that this threat is real in the long-term abatement context.”

“Importantly, the asserted benefits of granting tax abatements are far from guaranteed.  Developers may overpromise benefits that do not materialize….  [A] number of studies have cast doubt on whether tax abatements generally attain their desired goals, including whether they actually affect business expansion, development and relocation decisions.”

“Meanwhile, the cost and burden-shifting effects are real.  At least in the near term, … tax receipts are lost.  At the same time, new development may increase the amount and types of [local] government services being demanded….  In instances where the development at issue would have occurred without an abatement, the tax distortions are even more severe.”

Sobering observations, none of which you’ll find on the Town’s website.  Our illumination of the disturbing consequences that may come Westfield’s way thanks to Mayor Brindle’s bold tax abatement action plan will conclude next time.  Please stay tuned.

JoAnn Neylan, Chairwoman

Westfield Town Republican Committee

Earlier this month, after introducing a budget that imposed the maximum allowable property tax levy increase on Westfield’s residents, the Brindle Administration took a major step toward handing out tax breaks to downtown property owners and commercial developers.

On May 12, the Mayor and Council declared the entire downtown Westfield business district to be an area in need of rehabilitation.  The vote came without any meaningful debate or public input and, of course, it was scheduled during a global pandemic with residents in mandatory lockdown.  Why was one of the most impactful decisions about the future of our downtown made in the dark?  Where was the transparency?  Read on for some troubling answers.

The primary purpose of property tax abatement programs, often referred to as Payments in Lieu of Taxes (“PILOTs”), is to encourage development in blighted or distressed areas.  Given the high values in and overall favorable physical condition of downtown Westfield, it is unclear why the Mayor would characterize our entire downtown as physically blighted and eligible for a tax abatement or PILOT.

Adding to that mystery, a State study (referenced in more detail below) shows that the New Jersey towns that most use tax abatement programs are typically the more urban and older municipalities with higher poverty rates and below average median household incomes, including Camden, Newark, Paterson, Union City, and Trenton.  Unlike Westfield, such towns find it difficult to attract investment, and use PILOTs to help develop properties that otherwise would remain in disrepair or abandoned.

Unfortunately, in all towns, the beneficial intent of PILOTs is often unrealized.  Property taxes that otherwise would have been paid by the benefitted commercial property owners are lost, and limited building improvements can simply act to increase the value of the affected private properties for the sole benefit of their commercial owners, and to the detriment of non-developer, residential taxpayers.  Ironically, when residential homeowners improve their properties, they do not get a tax break; instead, their taxes go up.

It should be no surprise that the tax abatement process is often subverted to favor politically connected developers.  The abuse of PILOT programs in New Jersey became so rampant that in 2010 the NJ State Comptroller published an exposé on them and municipal tax abatements generally, which you can read for yourself here:  https://www.nj.gov/comptroller/news/docs/tax_abatement_report.pdf.

The Comptroller’s study noted that the criteria required to establish a “need” for rehabilitation is open-ended and subject to interpretation.  As one observer of the process stated, “local governing bodies can – and often do – grant abatements to almost any developer building anything, anywhere.”  Furthermore, there are no clear laws concerning when a designation of “need” should be removed, or how often designations should be revisited to ensure that improvement over time has not obviated the need for continued abatements.

The Comptroller also noted that “[t]he processes being used also tend to limit meaningful public involvement….  [M]eaningful up-front analyses concerning the costs and benefits of awarding a particular abatement is often lacking.”  Sound familiar?

Most alarming, PILOTs by design reduce the property tax revenue available to local schools because, unlike regular property taxes, the agreed payment from the developer is used almost exclusively to fund the municipal budget, with 5% typically paid to the county; the town is under no obligation to share a penny with local schools.  As a result, schools suffer, as is evident in the communities named above, or non-developer residents like us need to make up the school funding difference through higher residential property taxes.

Next week, we will explore in detail the State Comptroller’s findings of cronyism, corruption, lost revenues, waste and abuse endemic to the tax breaks that Mayor Brindle has set in motion.

JoAnn Neylan, Chairwoman 

Westfield Town Republican Committee

www.westfieldgop.com

The Town’s surplus funds are like the savings account that we all try to maintain for our own households.  Surplus is critical for towns to address unanticipated and unbudgeted costs, for example those brought on by blizzards, hurricanes and, yes, global pandemics.  They protect against periods of economic turmoil and they help to earn and maintain a AAA credit rating, which Westfield achieved in 2014 and which reduces the borrowing costs to taxpayers for capital improvements.  Today, that stellar credit rating is at risk.

When Mayor Brindle took office on January 1, 2018, Westfield enjoyed a robust surplus account of $14.5 million.  Even before COVID-19, the Town’s preliminary 2020 budget showed a surprisingly low $7.4 million surplus at year end.  The Mayor’s recently introduced budget, on which the Town Council will vote on May 26, is even more alarming — projecting a surplus balance of only $7 million on December 31, 2020.

What will Westfield taxpayers have received in exchange for the spending of $7.5 million of our collective savings by the Brindle Administration in the past three years?  New athletic fields for our children?  Not a single one.  A performing arts center in the shuttered Rialto or an improved streetscape downtown?  Nope.  How about the reduction or elimination of the Town’s sewer fee or parking fees in light of the pandemic?  Wrong again.  In fact, earlier this year, the sewer fee was increased by more than 18%, a classic tax gimmick used to help plug a growing budget hole.

As a result of the Brindle Administration’s excessive spending and financial mismanagement, $7.5 million in taxpayer savings will have disappeared.  That money now cannot be used to help Westfield residents and downtown businesses overcome the financial consequences of COVID-19; it is not available to cover unplanned expenses incurred if a Superstorm Sandy-like climate event hits again this year; and it cannot be accessed now or in the future to improve our parks, playing fields, and playgrounds.

Mayor Brindle likes to point to the many newly paved roads in Town as an example of surplus money well spent.  But paving projects are generally funded with money from our capital budget, not surplus funds from our operating budget.  And a majority of the work was (and will be) paid for by Elizabethtown Gas, with the Mayor happily benefitting from the timing of their long-planned underground pipeline replacement program.

The Mayor is less quick to admit that the Town budget has increased by more than $4.1 million since she took office; that this year’s property tax levy increase is at the maximum allowed by state law, providing no pandemic relief to taxpayers; and that due to her policies, non-property tax revenues (largely paid by non-residents) from construction fees and permits, parking, municipal court, and interest on the Town’s investments, decreased by more than half a million dollars last year compared to 2018, and are expected to decrease by another $1 million in this year’s budget.

Our surplus savings are not being depleted because of road paving or COVID-19, but because of overspending and flawed governance.  This is not politics, it’s math.  And basic arithmetic shows that if Mayor Brindle’s spending and shortsighted policies remain unchecked, Westfield’s surplus will be gone in the very near future.  Also gone will be the Town’s hard-earned AAA credit rating and, most importantly, our ability to address and overcome ongoing and future financial challenges.

JoAnn Neylan, Chairwoman

Westfield Town Republican Committee

On March 10, 2020, just before the devastating human and economic impact of the COVID-19 virus would become widely known, Mayor Shelly Brindle released a “Bold Action Plan” for Westfield. In it, she criticized the Town’s prior budget policies that had, in her words, “taken a very conservative approach to budgeting which has effectively maintained the status quo while yielding a positive AAA bond rating and sizable surplus.” Quite an admission.
In announcing her new plan, Mayor Brindle mocked the sound fiscal management that successfully navigated Westfield through the economic consequences of 9/11, the Great Recession, and Superstorm Sandy, saying that it was an “approach that a financial advisor would apply to a couple in retirement, ensuring there is adequate funding to support basic needs for their remaining years, while leaving something for the grandkids.” Well, seven weeks later, it turns out that, as usual, grandma knows best.
There is no better evidence of the Brindle Administration’s mismanagement and profligate spending than the recently introduced 2020 Town budget. Among other lowlights, the budget includes (1) an increase in property taxes up to the state maximum; (2) continuing decreases from 2019 in parking, municipal court, construction, and other non-tax revenues that are paid in part by non-residents, due in large part to the Mayor’s anti-enforcement, anti-homebuilding policies; and (3) most alarming, and notwithstanding the Mayor’s prior assurances about “maintaining a healthy $10 million surplus,” Westfield’s 2020 municipal budget anticipates our year-end surplus to be only $7 million — less than half what it was just two years ago.
Mayor Brindle inherited a budget surplus of $14.5 million in 2018. Under more prudent leadership, at least $7.5 million in additional surplus funds would now be available for Westfield to assist residents and local businesses to weather this financial storm; for example, by imposing no property tax increase, offering a partial refund to commuters who paid for parking permits they cannot use, or providing meaningful economic relief to downtown businesses. Instead, that money is gone, used to pay for parties and to plug budget holes.
Over the past few weeks, Councilman Mark LoGrippo has sounded the alarm about the exorbitant property tax hike and dangerous use of surplus that Mayor Brindle was set to propose in this year’s budget. Even though Councilman LoGrippo is a minority of one on the Town Council, his efforts helped to cut the Mayor’s preliminary 2.99% tax increase in 2020 by one-third. But even the Mayor’s 2% tax levy increase, the maximum allowed by state law and on top of this year’s 18% increase in the sewer fee, is more than Westfield residents should pay in light of the Town’s historic financial health.
Westfield residents will pay a far higher property tax increase in 2020 than those in neighboring towns like Scotch Plains and Berkeley Heights who, like many others, have found a way to impose no tax increase in their budgets this year. Even Union County, not known for its fiscal austerity, has introduced a budget with a tax levy increase of 0%. Leaders in other towns, like Wyckoff, are actually decreasing the property tax burden on their residents. “No tax increase is the right thing to do at this time, even though we all have rising costs,” Wyckoff Mayor Timothy Shanley wisely observed. Westfield used to lead other communities in fiscal responsibility; now, we can’t even follow them.
In just over two years, the policies of the Brindle Administration have increased spending, reduced non-tax revenues (largely by design, as the Mayor admitted when introducing the 2020 budget), and raided our surplus savings account. Had Mayor Brindle continued rather than mocked the sound fiscal management that, even three years later, is keeping our budget hole from becoming a crater, the Town would be much better prepared to address unexpected, but inevitable, financial challenges like those now being caused by COVID-19.
Instead, Westfield’s robust surplus, the “healthy nest egg” that Mayor Brindle described on March 10 as the result of smart fiscal policies of the past, has been poached. Taxes are up, revenues are down, and more than half of our surplus is gone. Equally concerning, as noted at this year’s budget meeting, even greater fiscal challenges lie ahead. Grandma would not be pleased.

WESTFIELD – Last month, Congressman Malinowski voted for H.R. 748, the $2.2 trillion “Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act” also known as the “CARES Act”. Not a single town in his district received direct municipal aid from the federal government to help them balance budget shortfalls created by the COVID-19 response. 

“We have never needed our federal representatives to stand up for us more than during this crisis,” said the Westfield Town Republican Committee. “Simply put, Congressman Malinowski failed this community in our time of need. He supported over $2 trillion in stimulus funds that provided $0 in aid to our municipal government. Our businesses, our healthcare system, and many family’s finances are stretched as thin as it gets and all we are asking for is help from a system that we have been paying into our entire lives.”

In light of the current health situation we have decided to cancel some of our upcoming events. Specifically, the next Thirsty Thursday (scheduled for March 26th), and the Tamaques Park Clean-Up (scheduled for March 28th) are cancelled. We will keep you informed about future events as time and more details surrounding the Corona virus unfold. Please stay safe, and follow the guidelines posted in the image from the NJ Assembly Republican Office.
We look forward to seeing all of our friends in the near future. In the meantime, you can always reach us via email at info@westfieldgop.com

March 11, 2020

In her comments at this week’s Town Council meeting, which she has also posted online, Mayor Brindle attempts to soften the blow of the unprecedented tax increase and surplus spending in the upcoming municipal budget by trumpeting her action plan for a “brighter future” for Westfield. This is classic politician-speak for “please ignore the past and present.” Following is a real-world translation of the Mayor’s comments:
“Let’s all look to the future, which I can describe however I want, and ignore the present facts that, more than two years into my tenure, more downtown stores are vacant than ever before, the Rialto has closed, and not a single new Town athletic field has been built or improved. Oh, and I have spent roughly half of the Town’s $14.5 million in savings when I took office to do it!”
“Pay no attention to my policies that have intentionally and substantially reduced the Town’s revenue from non-property tax sources, like parking, court fines, and construction permits, much of which is paid by non-residents. Because non-residents and specific users of municipal services are paying less, Westfielders are paying more! This year’s budget will increase the property tax burden on residents through a record high tax rate (exceeding the 2% cap imposed by state law, but who’s counting) and an 18% higher sewer fee. Brilliant, no? But, hey, your street was paved (likely by Elizabethtown Gas, not me).”
“I admit that the Town’s conservative approach to using taxpayer money in the past had resulted in significant surplus funds and a AAA credit rating, thereby allowing the Town to address severe, adverse climate and economic events, and to enjoy record low interest rates on borrowing, but that was then and this is now. I am spending more of your money to “invest” in Westfield (even though “investments” typically provide a return, which I can’t seem to find).
“Finally, I am putting the Town that you and I moved to for its tree-lined residential streets, walkable downtown, and bucolic neighborhoods on a path to substantial redevelopment. That is because although my policies intentionally impede the building of new single-family homes, I see no problem with constructing high-rise apartments and office buildings, and then giving those builders PILOTs so they can avoid funding our schools (another reason you moved here)!”
A “bold action plan” indeed.

JoAnn Neylan​, Chairwoman
Westfield Town Republican Committee