Cyclists of Jersey City and the world, unite! You have only your bikes— and chains—to lose.
But if it’s any consolation, Jersey City isn’t alone.
According to the New Jersey State Police, as of 2016 (the last year for which bike snatches were listed separately as a category of larceny), Hudson County had more reported bike thefts than any other county in the state: 1,001. But Jersey City definitely accounts for a big percentage of these. Four hundred one bicycles were reported stolen in 2017; 167 in 2018; and 340 in 2019.
Each year, the majority of bikes were purloined from the city’s east police district, which encompasses the downtown ward—home to thousands of commuters, many of whom park their bikes near the Grove Street PATH station, an inviting target of bike thieves.
The second-highest total of the city’s bike takings reported were in the north district, home to the Journal Square PATH station, which is also the scene of much bicycle-related crime.
But almost a year ago, prodded by a recommendation from the Journal Square Business Improvement District, the Port Authority contracted with Oonee, a Brooklyn-based firm, to install and manage a secured indoor bike-parking pod on the street level of the Journal Square PATH complex.
According to its website, Oonee “offers space for 20 bikes on a first-come, first-served basis. For a limited time, access can be reserved for free for the entirety of 2020.”
The company, headed by co-founder and CEO Shabazz Stuart, also operates a similar pod across from the Barclays Center in Brooklyn.
Bikers access the pod with a coded keycard or cellphone app. “We provide each user with insurance to cover the appreciated value of their bike,” Stuart said, if a bike should disappear.
That happened in October 2019 when two people reported their bikes missing. In both cases, according to Stuart, the owner had failed to lock his bike, but Oonee made both individuals whole nonetheless, and nothing’s happened since then.
The Journal Square pod caught on quickly, and by fall 2019 “we had a significant waiting list,” Stuart went on to say. A recent patron survey found that a majority park for eight to 16 hours—much longer than at a typical bike rack.
Unfortunately, After the coronavirus struck, because most of the pod users had been commuters, pod usage decreased.
Still, the P.A., according to spokeswoman Abigail Goldring, deems its pilot pod a success and remains “… committed to expanding biking options for employees, customers and other patrons of our facilities to support clean and healthy modes of transportation.”
Goldring added, “Bicycling was already growing as an alternative transportation option before the pandemic, so we know that the Oonee pod will continue to be a convenient amenity for those commuting to and from the Journal Square Transportation hub as offices reopen … we’re looking at additional locations to help solve the ‘last mile’ problem for our customers. …”
Goldring declined to name any other PATH stations that might host any other bike pods.
The bike riding community in Jersey City commends the devices as well.
“We love the pod,” said Patrick Conlon, board president of Bike JC, a local nonprofit bike advocacy group. “It would be nice if we had an even larger bike infrastructure, especially around transit hubs, where a lot of commuters tend to ride their bikes to and get on train. Look at a country like the Netherlands, which has many facilities dedicated to bikes and scooters.”
Conlon said Bike JC has been talking with the city about doing something to fill the bike parking gap, and it appears the city—which is continuing to expand bike pathways along major vehicular routes—is preparing to issue a request for proposals for secured bike-parking facilities.
It wouldn’t be the first time that concept was broached: In September 2019, Jersey City published a “Let’s Ride JC Bikeway Design Guide” that advised, “Providing bicycle parking and other ‘end-of-trip’ facilities are critically important to support cycling as a viable mode of transportation.”
The guide offers several strategic alternatives to accomplish that goal but makes no specific recommendation.
Even the simplest form of bike parking has taken a hit locally. City Bike JC, contracted by the city to provide bike sharing, has relocated eight of its least-used bike docking stations from Greenville to areas that see more heavy use—a move that Bike JC’s website says may make sense from a business point of view but will still end up hurting already underserved and low-income neighborhoods.
This move, Bike JC says, “… will exacerbate the already documented equity gap in bike share systems.”
Whatever solutions the city may come up with can’t come soon enough for folks like local small businessman Alfonso Acevedo, whose bikes serve as his primary mode of transit.
About eight months ago, Acevedo had two bikes stolen from open racks at the Journal Square PATH. “They had it on camera, but unless the thief is caught red-handed, the cops do nothing,” he said. “It’s rare for them to stop anyone to check a serial number on a bike [to check on whether it’s been stolen]. Luckily, I had insurance and made a claim.”
It is just a hunch, but Acevedo believes “80% of bikes stolen probably go unreported.”
Requests for a comment on the matter from a city hall spokesperson were unfulfilled, but the nonprofit Center for Problem-Oriented Policing based at Arizona State University had some relevant observations in a report released in 2008.
“Interviews with bicycle theft victims indicate that underreporting is largely due to victims’ belief that the police are not interested in bicycle theft and cannot do anything about catching the offender and returning the stolen bicycle,” the report noted.
That impression is reinforced by the fact that many local police departments lump bicycle thefts with overall larceny in their incident reporting rather than breaking out bicycle crimes as a separate entity.
The POP Center notes that, “Clearance rates for bicycle thefts remain consistently low” for these reasons: “[T]here typically exists little relationship between the victim and the offender, and hence it is difficult to identify suspects”; bike takings being a crime of stealth which typically “… goes unnoticed or unchallenged”; and even when bike thefts are reported to police, “… the majority of bicycle owners cannot supply sufficient details (including proof of ownership) to assist in an investigation.”
Too many riders – particularly novices – have the wrong attitude toward their bikes, cautioned Rodney Morweiser, owner of Grove Street Bicycles. “They have the sense of it being a toy, of no value,” he says. “Or, those desperate to buy or sell a bike are unaware it can be stolen. Or they’re oblivious to locking their bike.”
So what should bike owners to keep their property safe? Experts offer the following advice:
Register your vehicle’s serial number and a short description with the National Bike Registry or the international Bike Index.
Secure your bike’s frame and at least one wheel with two types of lock: a “U-Lock” (connected to a chain of good length) and a padlock or heavy-duty cable. Also, try to lock your vehicle in a high-traffic area.
Purchase a stand-alone bicycle insurance policy.
Take this counsel seriously. A report published in June 2008 by the U.S. Justice Department’s Office of Community Oriented Police estimates that more than 250,000 bicycles are stolen every year. Many others, it notes, go unreported.
Photos by Ron Leir
Editor’s Note: A previous version of this story stated that the Oonee pods would cost $2 per month beginning in 2021. The company is now waiving that planned fee.
Governor yields to pressure from all sides, steps back from requirement that students, teachers must attend in-class instruction some of the time
This story was written and produced by NJ Spotlight. It is being republished under a special NJ News Commons content-sharing agreement related to COVID-19 coverage. To read more, visit njspotlight.com.
New Jersey’s attempts to come up with a plan for reopening its schools in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic has been a frenetic whirlwind.
And we’re still six weeks out.
Facing pressures from all sides, Gov. Phil Murphy on Monday created a bit of a stir and said families that want to sit out the physical reopening of schools now will have a choice to stay with virtual instruction after all.
He didn’t say much beyond that, saying state guidelines were forthcoming and leaving open many questions about exactly how his announcement would work.
“The details will be coming out later this week, but we wanted everyone to know now that we will allow for this step,” Murphy said at his daily media briefing.
The latest announcement from Murphy of a “virtual-only” option for families came suddenly, as concerns were mounting about how to address those who may not feel comfortable going back to school, even with all the precautions of screening, masks and distancing.
No time for full reopening?
Murphy’s statement came after the head of the state’s powerful teachers union last week said she doubted there is enough time for a full reopening anyway. And Murphy himself said an initiative to close the digital divide has already left hundreds of thousands of students behind.
The swirl of developments — all in late July — has left superintendents and others with their heads spinning as they prepare their districts’ reopening plans, which are due in the next two weeks.
At least that’s the current timetable.
Brick-and-mortar instruction
Murphy had said that all districts would have to have at least some in-person instruction, leaving to districts how to design that but promoting there would likely be at least a couple of days a week of remote or virtual instruction.
But the questions grew about whether that meant all families had to participate in in-school instruction. The state has been unclear in its guidance so far, with some hearing that families may even have to withdraw their children from the school system altogether.
The state’s 104-page package for reopening schools currently does not include any provisions for parent choice, only a handful in the country without such provisions, according to one study by Johns Hopkins University.
Reacting to the news on Monday, some superintendents and other school advocates welcomed the opportunity for as much flexibility as possible. A letter to the governor signed by scores of superintendents had asked for a remote option and clarification from the state.
“We were heartened that Gov. Murphy was responsive to the voices in the field and has moved forward on clarifying a remote option for parents which will assist all of us in our planning for reopening,” said David Aderhold, the West Windsor-Plainsboro superintendent who has been outspoken in calling for better guidance from the state.
“There was great advocacy for this option,” Aderhold said in an email. “We appreciate the willingness of the governor and his administration to listen and consider issues faced by school districts across the state.”
No details yet
The department said guidance would be coming by the end of the week, although it provided no details at all about what would be covered.
A host of questions arise: Will those insisting on virtual instruction be put at any disadvantage or a possible advantage? Could it be a fluid decision to be made by parents or for a set time? What about busing; is that a separate choice?
“Districts and parents need reliable assurances from the Department of Education that it counts for enrollment and attendance purposes, and that we’re not just relying on some informal nonbinding guidance,” said school board attorney David Rubin, whose Metuchen law firm represents more than 50 districts.
“Will students whose families have opted to keep them home for the school day be permitted to take part in on-campus extracurricular activities or sports, perhaps displacing students who’ve committed to be fully present?”
Murphy on Monday would not take further questions on the issue, but acknowledged there will be many to come.
“There are a lot of moving parts to this,” Murphy said. “We want to get it right. We want to do it responsibly.”
But Department of Education says the full cost of equipping schools, families for remote instruction is likely close to $115 million
This story was written and produced by NJ Spotlight. It is being republished under a special NJ News Commons content-sharing agreement related to COVID-19 coverage. To read more, visit njspotlight.com.
Hosted at an elementary school in one of the poorest cities in the state, Gov. Phil Murphy last week presented a plan that he said would help close the gaping digital divide for New Jersey public education in this COVID-19 pandemic world.
His plans only confirm just how gaping a divide it is.
Murphy traveled on Thursday to Irvington’s Madison Avenue School to announce a plan to target $54 million in existing federal aid to help buy the thousands of Chromebooks, laptops, Wi-Fi hotspots and other tools for schools and families in need if remote instruction is again to be a big part of the mix in the fall, as expected.
He said 4,800 students in Irvington alone — more than half the district — were left out of full use of remote instruction in the spring due to technology needs and in peril for the same for the fall.
“It is an untenable divide,” Murphy said Thursday. “It is not a cost we can ignore, we must address this now.”
It was an inevitable acknowledgment from the governor that whatever schools look like in September, computers for remote instruction have become the new paper-and-pencil of basic school supplies — and tens of thousands of New Jersey kids are without them.
DOE has more work to do
But despite the promise to fully close the gap, this looks to be only the start. The state Department of Education on Friday said that the full need is likely close to $115 million, and Murphy himself said as many as 230,000 students — a fifth of the state’s public school enrollment — were without the needed devices and connectivity this spring.
That’s even more than previously reported, when officials in May said about 90,000 families were without connectivity and 130,000 without adequate devices. But the state’s numbers have also always been loosely reported, and the department said it would release updated ones this week.
The DOE on Friday maintained that districts have already started to close the gap, and the additional public investment — along with an undefined public pledge drive for corporate philanthropic support — will go a long way toward closing it entirely. It cited a rough estimate of about $500 per student.
The plan would include three main components:
$10 million in existing federal funds to districts to purchase and provide the technology;
$44 million in other federal emergency funds provided by the state; and an
unidentified sum in business and other philanthropic funds.
The federal money that districts could receive anyway would be available in a grant process through the state education department. In what is an unusual outreach, Murphy’s plan for philanthropic support would have the state’s Economic Development Authority open a formal process for private funds to be donated from organizations and corporations.
“Any help we can get from our business community will allow us to stretch our state funds even further and offset other costs face in reopening,” Murphy said.
Standing with Murphy on Thursday were Senate President Steve Sweeney and state Sen. Teresa Ruiz, inarguably the two most influential legislators when it comes to education policy. Sweeney’s attendance especially didn’t go unnoticed, given his often-contentious relationship with Murphy.
“These are tough times and there is not a lot of money, but it’s critically important that the governor will insure that all children – that’s a big word, all children – are going to be ensure the opportunity for an education,” Sweeney said.
“How many Einsteins have we lost, how brilliant kids did we lose because they did not get a good education,” he said.
Ruiz has been among the state’s most outspoken when it comes to the digital divide, and she said this investment was a start.
“The pandemic uncovered an ugly truth that many of us always knew,” Ruiz said. “It is not something that happened over the last five months, it is something that we have been screaming about for decades.
“We do not know what September will bring, but we know that many districts will be going hybrid [in-person and virtual], so let’s equip every child with that they need,” she said.
When contacted afterward, Ruiz said more investment will be necessary, citing the needs and training for teachers, as well.
“This was the easiest part to do,” she said in an interview with NJ Spotlight. “It’s just the beginning.”
Call the Guinness Book of World Records. The Jersey City Council’s virtual meeting Wednesday night set its own record at nine hours and 20 minutes with 175 callers dialing in with concerns about Liberty State Park and defunding police. Callers voiced support for the Liberty State Park Protection Act and demanded the $159 million designated for police personnel in the FY2020-2021 municipal budget get reduced by half with the balance going to programs that support the needs of the Jersey City community.
In an 8-1 vote, with Ward F Councilman Jermaine Robinson dissenting, the City Council passed the resolution to support the Liberty State Park Protection Act. Before the 175 callers were invited to speak, Council President Joyce E. Watterman motioned for the resolution to be deferred to an early vote prior to the call-in speakers.
“The City Council has done this before, moved things up to the top of the agenda, when there are a large number of speakers,” Council at Large Rolando R. Lavarro, Jr., said. “It’s been done in the past. Still, I’m going to vote no in this instance. I think we should hear from the speakers.”
The council voted 6-3 to move up the vote with Councilmen Lavarro, James Solomon and Jermaine Robinson dissenting. Before the vote, Councilman Solomon made a motion to amend the resolution, seconded by Councilman Lavarro, to include a provision for “the communities of Ward F and A which deserve fair and equitable treatment in the decision-making in the future of Liberty StatePark”.
“We are trying to make things better,” Councilman Solomon said. “Amendments will make it a better piece of legislation.”
Last week, Councilman Robinson held a public forum for his Ward F constituents to express their concerns about having a voice in the Liberty State Park Protection Act. Although more than 200 residents tuned in to the Zoom meeting—with many callers hoping to air concerns about saving Liberty State Park’s Caven Point wildlife estuary from privatization—the moderator turned off their computers’ audio, and the callers were completely muted. In the time since, Councilman Solomon drew up the amendments with input from Councilman Robinson, but according to Councilman Robinson, the amendments did not go far enough.
“We all agree Caven Point should never be touched,” Robinson said of the possibility of additional privatization, “but I do have deep concerns over the bill in Trenton right now. I want to send a stronger message.”
Councilman Robinson was referring to the bill in the New Jersey Legislature to pass the Liberty State Preservation Act. In January, the bill passed in the New Jersey senate, but when it came time to post it for a vote in the assembly, Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin (D-19) refused, and it died on the final day of the 2019-2020 legislative session. The next day, three Hudson County assembly members reintroduced the bill.
Meanwhile, just yesterday, billionaire Paul Fireman, who owns Liberty National Golf Course and who has expressed interest in turning Caven Point wildlife estuary into three holes for golfers, issued a press release stating he is not going forward with his intention to obtain Caven Point. Councilman Lavarro says it’s a temporary pause.
“Fireman’s not saying he’s out of the business,” Councilman Lavarro said. “We need to stay vigilant, redouble our efforts, and fight back against these billionaire interests.”
Preserving the People’s Park
Sam Pesin, the president of the Friends of Liberty State Park refers to Liberty State Park as the ‘people’s park.” In 1976, Pesin’s father, Morris, helped found the park. Since his father’s passing, Sam Pesin has followed in his dad’s footsteps, devoting his time to his non-profit, the Friends of Liberty State Park (FOLSP) which has thousands of supporters. His petition to support the Liberty State Park Preservation Act has 18,000 signatures. He called in to the council meeting to offer his thanks to the City Council for passing the bill and to warn the council against Fireman’s land grab.
“For 44 years, the people have put democracy into action and have fought for this people’s park behind Lady Liberty,” Pesin said. “The overwhelming majority strongly opposed park privatization every time, no matter what revenue was promised in return for sacrificing park land. From the time of its opening, the park has sustained overwhelming public support for green and open space and overwhelming opposition to privatization and commercialization proposals as expressed by people in public hearings, countless public comments, petitions and a series of coalitions of local, regional, and state-wide groups.”
Supporter Jill Posterino said protecting Liberty State Park from privatization is intrinsic to the Jersey City community. She said land should not be given away because wealth and privilege demand it.
“The golf course owner has inserted money and arguments into this democratic process in such a way to sow division and muddy the issue at hand,” Posterino said. “It is a strategy we have seen used time and again by those who want exemptions carved out only for themselves and who want to take ownership of something that doesn’t belong to them.”
Steve Krinsky, a retired school teacher warned that the work is far from done.
“The fight moves to Trenton,” Krinsky said. “I hope you’ll stand up for this issue. We should be appalled at things like this and speak out against them.”
Defunding the Police
The City Council held a public hearing on the FY2020-2021 municipal budget and heard from many Jersey City residents demanding the $159 million allocated to the Jersey City police department be cut in half with the balance used for social services and community programs. Elena Thompson, a member of Solidarity Jersey City, said the diverted funding should be invested in services like affordable housing, youth programming, and access to quality healthcare.
“Downtown Jersey City is safe not because it has the most police,” Thompson said. “Downtown is safe because it has the most resources. Decrease the JCPD budget by 50 percent. This is the civil rights movement of our time.”
Ward F resident Andrew John, a member of Solidarity Jersey City, agreed that the police should be defunded with the money re-allocated to housing, and health and human services.
“We’re all in agreement that the vulnerable need resources,” John said. “We need to look beyond this to what the community needs. This money is spent on police salaries. Since 2013 the force has nearly doubled in size. $50 million could create more youth programs, better mental health programs, initiatives like the ‘I love Greenville’ plan.”
CEO of Hudson Partnership Care Management Organization Robin Gorman called in and spoke to the council about the work she does with Hudson youth. Gorman works regularly with approximately 800 young people, and she receives most referrals from Jersey City where children are traumatized by gun violence, domestic violence, physical abuse, and addiction.
“When I look at the youth of Jersey City, I feel we are shortchanging them,” she said. “The average age of youth that come to us are 15. By the time they come to us, they’ve experienced a lot of trauma. They’ve been disconnected from the educational system. If we had a handle of identifying their needs sooner, we could intervene in an impactful way. We choose to fund police, probation officers, the courts, detention centers, and prisons. If we’re going to put our money where our mouth is and be invested in anti-violence efforts, we need to move this money away from public safety and put it into kids’ programing.”
The next City Council meeting will be held Wed., Aug. 12 at 6 p.m.
School districts struggling to balance in-school/virtual instruction face another problem — educators, students unwilling to return to brick-and-mortar classrooms
This story was written and produced by NJ Spotlight. It is being republished under a special NJ News Commons content-sharing agreement related to COVID-19 coverage. To read more, visit njspotlight.com.
Reopening schools in New Jersey may be more than a month away, but districts and families are already facing some fundamental first-day questions.
When the doors open, will families have to send their children if the COVID-19 pandemic is still here, as is all but certain? What about teachers? And how will schools deal with decisions by parents and teachers about coming back?
Those are some of the wild cards that districts are contemplating as they develop reopening plans for September, regardless of the form they take.
The quandary is clear. Gov. Phil Murphy has declared that come September schools must be open for in-school instruction, at least to some degree. But it’s up to local districts and communities to decide how they meet that requirement, as long as they follow health and safety rules that include social distancing and wearing face coverings.
Districts are hammering out their plans, which are not due for another several weeks, and they are looking at all kinds of intricate combinations of in-person and remote instruction to ensure that schools are safe. Some are staggering schedules across days; others, weeks. What they have in common is that all are logistical jigsaw puzzles.
Basic questions left unanswered
But in its 104 pages of guidance and resources available to public schools, the state Department of Education has so far provided no path about how much choice parents and educators have in participating or not. Districts have been left to come up with their own criteria for that, too.
Jersey City this week said families will have the discretion to keep their children at home if they choose. Other districts are taking a harder line, requiring students to come in at least some of the time.
The only guidance the state has provided so far was then-Education Commissioner Lamont Repollet saying in June that whatever the choices, neither students nor teachers would be penalized if they chose to opt out.
That leaves a lot of leeway, however, and school board attorney David Rubin, whose firm serves dozens of districts statewide, said he has clients on both ends of the spectrum when it comes to whether families will have a choice.
And what’s his legal advice so far?
“Clearly districts will have to offer something in person, but what that looks like and whether there are those who will be skittish about showing up, districts will have to accommodate that in some way,” Rubin said.
“I think most would allow for some flexibility, as long as it is manageable,” he said.
Michael LaSusa, superintendent of schools in the Chathams, said there is no hard-and-fast policy in his district for a situation that will likely remain fluid for a while. So far, he said the district is trying to accommodate both teachers’ and families’ concerns.
“We have advised parents that we intend to allow them to opt for virtual instruction, if they have a concern about their child attending school,” he said in an email. “As our plans are preliminary at this point, we have not gone further than that.”
Options are not unlimited
As for teachers, LaSusa said that staff are being told they should individually raise the issue with the district to discuss the options, of which there are several but not limitless ones.
The state’s sick-leave requirements for all employees were relaxed early in the pandemic, under a new law that allowed more time for those at risk of the virus or with vulnerable members of their households. And under previous workplace and disability laws, accommodations must also be made to minimize the risk for educators and others.
The New Jersey Education Association, the teachers union, has already raised alarms about its members being required to go into buildings where they may be at risk of contagion. There has been discussion of also requiring daily screenings, for instance, on top of required masks and distancing.
“We are already seeing a wide range of (teacher) requests,” said Rubin, the school board attorney. “Some have disabilities, and some are just nervous.”
But his advice is that just being nervous will likely not be enough for a teacher to opt out.
The fear factor
“To my knowledge, you have no right to stay at home just because you’re scared,” Rubin said. “But sifting through all of those will be a complex and time-consuming task.”
The department is so far staying mum on whether more guidance is to come. But the school boards association said that acting education commissioner Kevin Dehmer in a conference call with the association said additional guidelines may be forthcoming for parental choice, while leaving teacher choice to individual districts and their staffs.
As of Wednesday, there has been nothing yet, with the department only repeating that the guidelines have been drawn from input from all stakeholders.
“New Jersey’s school-reopening guidance is really a culmination of listening to many voices over the past four months,” said spokesman Michael Yaple.
“The department held, quite literally, hundreds upon hundreds of meetings with people and organizations in the school community, ranging from educators and school administrators to parents, students, support staff and health specialists,” he said. “These meetings helped identify areas where schools faced the greatest challenges, and they helped shape our guidance.”
Paul Fireman, through his public relations firm Kivvit, issued a statement today that he is “halting any efforts to pursue a public private partnership at Caven Point.” For several years, Fireman has been engaged in an effort to convert Caven Point, a 21 acre piece of land that park advocates and environmentalists consider an important nesting area for wildlife, into three holes for his Liberty National Golf Club. A vote to support a state law protecting Liberty State Park from privatization is scheduled for tonight’s city council meeting.
The statement reads as follows:
“For decades, Jersey City’s minority communities have been systematically shut out of the decision-making process on Liberty State Park. No one asked the communities’ opinions or cared about what was truly needed, and decisions were made for them. Meanwhile, 40 years later the Park is still incomplete.
“This fight for social justice is the most important fight taking place at Liberty State Park today. Those who do not want to empower minority communities are using me in an effort to distract from the real issue of who gets to make decisions. If people are serious about listening to minority voices, then we need a new effort that lets those voices be heard.
“I will not be used as an excuse for inaction any longer. That is why I am halting any efforts to pursue a public private partnership at Caven Point. I am doing this to force the supporters of the Liberty State Park Protection Act to address the social justice problems connected to Liberty State Park without using me as an excuse to keep ignoring minority communities.
“A new effort must be launched on Liberty State Park that will allow Jersey City’s minority communities a seat at the table AND ensure no actions are taken until there is community say in the decision-making process. When the Park was created 40 years ago community leaders, faith groups, politicians and business leaders were brought together. Their recommendations, after a thorough process, became the Liberty State Park Master Plan. This plan remains active today and is still being ignored. Its principles and ideas should serve as the basis of a new effort and a new plan.
“Sam Pesin should have been the leader of making that original plan a reality. Instead, after 40 years, Sam has done nothing to implement the grand vision for Liberty State Park. Pesin has reinforced a do-nothing policy and shut out minority communities from the decision-making process. This exclusion would continue under the Liberty State Park Protection Act.
“Sam Pesin and the Friends of Liberty State Park do not support proper decontamination of the interior 235 acres of the Park, which sits next to a minority neighborhood. Pesin wants this land to be a preserve, not a park. The toxic contaminated land currently sits behind a chain link fence where recreational opportunities – which were promised to minority communities – should exist. This contaminated land should be cleaned and converted into a swimming pool, arts and recreation center, ballfields, basketball courts, picnic areas and natural habitat restoration. There was also supposed to be a transportation system at the Park, which would help minority communities get there. That has not happened either. The fact that none of this has happened shows Pesin has been focused more on control of the process at the Park, rather than making Liberty State Park a better place for all.
“I have never advocated for privatization of Liberty State Park. I do believe the reality is our parks need public and private support to be great. It is a model used across the world. But I am halting efforts around Caven Point so there can be a real discussion about empowering minority voices to have their say about the future of Liberty State Park and the 235 acres of the Interior.”
Fireman’s statement comes on the heels of a controversial “Ward F Community Conversation” hosted on Zoom by Councilman Jermaine Robinson, Arnold Stovell and Bruce Alston. Neither invited panelist and president of Friends of Liberty State Park, Sam Pesin, nor any of the approximately 200 guests were permitted to speak. The “conversation” was preceded by the dissemination of a racially charged flyer that made many of the same allegations contained in Fireman’s press release today. Some observers of the Zoom meeting had suggested that Fireman was behind the flyer and Zoom meeting.
In response, Pesin and FOLSP released the following statement.
All supporters of a free public park behind Lady Liberty will be relieved to read about Paul Fireman claiming to give up his relentless self-serving false narrative about the park and his goal of privatizing and destroying the Caven Point natural preserve and urban environmental education resource to relocate exclusionary golf course holes closer to the bay for a better view for his millionaire members.
Paul Fireman is in a long line of would-be LSP privatizers who have met with consistent, overwhelming opposition in 44 years of grassroots battles. Over 85 groups are in the current “Coalition to Pass the LSP Protection Act”, and over 18,000 citizens have signed an onlne petition without the opportunity to engage the public during the pandemic.
Most importantly, the LSP Protection Act is needed now more than ever to end privatization assaults on LSP. We urge the Speaker of the Assembly and the Senate President to post the legislation championed by Senators Brian Stack and Loretta Weinberg and Assemblypersons Raj Mukherji. Angela McKnight so that the Governor may sign the essential and landmark law to protect, once and for all, our urban, state and national treasure behind Lady Liberty.
Without the Protection Act, Paul Fireman will come roaring back with his disinformation, political contributions, and lobbyists under a new governor for his ultimate goal of a land grab of Caven Point.
Minority communities and all park visitors would of course benefit from park improvements including active recreational offerings (which our group has always supported, and the NJDEP, which manages LSP, is open to collaborating on) and the Protection Act requires comprehensive public participation.
If Paul Fireman actually cares about minority communities in Jersey City and about LSP, we hope his offers of philanthropy and a First Tee youth golf academy will not go the way of his privatization proposal now that no quid pro quo is attached by way of seizing public parkland.
The Protection Act must become law to once and for all protect this priceless park, and establish a peaceful and positive era of collaboration with the public, elected officials and the NJDEP to make this great park even better!
We thank all park supporters who have fought once again against LSP privatization plans, including the main sponsors of the Act – Asm Raj Mukherji, Asw Angela McKnight, Asm Nick Chiaravalloti, and Sen Stack and Sen Weinberg. We also thank the media for their news coverage and the editorials which informed the public about Paul Fireman’s privatization land grab of Caven Point. Thank God for the People, whose involvement is still needed until the Act is signed into law, for advocating for a free park behind Lady Liberty and thanks for our nation’s free press!
It should be a no-brainer for the legislature and the Governor to protect LSP for future generations as a free park for all to enjoy behind Lady Liberty.
Photo of Red Tailed Hawk at Caven Point by Shayna Marchese
Thursday’s Orwellian “community conversation” about the future of Liberty State Park marked a new low even by the already low standards of Jersey City politics. Promoted by Ward F Councilman Jermaine Robinson, “moderated” by Arnold Stovell, and featuring “panelist” Bruce Alston, the Zoom meeting was anything but a conversation. The tireless Sam Pesin, president of Friends of Liberty State Park, who was also billed as a “panelist,” wasn’t permitted to speak—at all. Nor were the approximately 200 people who logged on in the mistaken belief that they would have a chance to participate in a meaningful discussion. Instead, what ensued was a shameful exercise in faux democracy that would make Vladimir Putin blush. The microphones of all but Stovell, Alston and Councilman Robinson were silenced, and listeners were treated to a misinformed diatribe apparently calculated to sow division and pave the way for the conversion of a pristine wildlife habitat into an expanded golf course for billionaires.
It’s hard to know where to begin. Let’s start with the timing. According to local observers, Mssrs. Robinson, Stovell, and Alston had never before expressed interest in Liberty State Park. So why now? As they say, timing is everything. The current offensive appears to have begun a month ago. On June 9, Assemblywoman Angela McKnight announced that her charity Angela Cares had received a 10 thousand dollar donation from The Paul and Phyllis Fireman Charitable Foundation. McKnight, whose district includes Ward F, is a sponsor of the Liberty State Park Protection Act against which Fireman has fought a multi-year battle. We would hope and expect that Ms. McKnight won’t be influenced by this money, but greasing important political hands is apparently nothing new for Fireman. According to the New York Times, Fireman, who lives in Massachusetts, has given out $420,000 to New Jersey Democrats and Republicans. It would be nice—though unlikely—if all of our local pols would be as transparent as McKnight.
On June 30 an unknown legislator slipped a provision into New Jersey’s “stop-gap” budget that would allow businesses to submit proposals for development in state parks. Observers say the provision could only have been written with Caven Point in mind. Directing Fireman’s offensive against wildlife is the Trenton lobbying firm River Crossing Strategy Group, which boasts that it is “a powerhouse with institutional reach.” Its founder, Eric Shuffler, worked on both the Fulop and Murphy transition teams.
On July 1, Alston posted a slick race-baiting flyer to his Facebook page entitled “Broken Promises of Liberty State Park.” Stamped at the top and bottom was the Black Lives Matter slogan “White Silence = White Violence.” It included among a plethora of misstatements and half truths the straw man that amenities “important to Black and Latino communities” included in a 1977 master plan for the park had not been built. Not long after, these scurrilous flyers began appearing on car windshields in Ward F.
It’s hard to imagine a more cynical, Trumpian strategy than that dreamed up by the creators of the flyer and its disseminator and agent, Bruce Alston. To attempt to divide Jersey City residents along racial lines is bad enough. To do so by co-opting the social justice message of Black Lives Matter in order to destroy a wildlife refuge and provide three scenic holes of golf for billionaires is as surreal as it is vile.
The flyer’s claim, adopted by Alston, that Friends of Liberty State Park has stood in the way of active recreational amenities in the park was and is baseless. First, as Pesin points out today, it is the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection that manages the park and is responsible for collaborating with the community. As to the role of FOLSP, Pesin recalls his father’s hope that Liberty State Park would have a “Central Park-type future,” i.e., that it would include athletic fields and small concessions. Pesin and FOLSP have always supported that vision.
Thankfully other voices from Ward F have spoken out against Fireman and his surrogates. Among them is Daoud David Williams, 77, a lifetime resident of Jersey City, army veteran and member of the NAACP. He put it bluntly: “It is disgusting that they want to racialize this. They are co-opting Black Lives Matter. They want to pretend that they are representative of the community.”
That it’s come to this is sad, indeed. Liberty State Park should not be a cause for division but, on the contrary, a place in which we all take pride. At this very moment, it is a place where people from all walks of life and every neighborhood mix. Tomorrow, the Jersey City Municipal Council will vote on Councilman James Solomon’s resolution in support of the Liberty State Protection Act. In 2019, Councilman Robinson supported a similar resolution. We hope he will chalk up this ill-conceived “community conversation” to experience and that he and the rest of the council will vote to approve the resolution. All communities in Jersey City should gather together to protect and improve the precious land we call Liberty State Park.
Councilman Jermaine Robinson and Other Event Organizers Prevent Community Residents From Speaking
Jersey City Councilman Jermaine D. Robinson scheduled a “Ward F Community Conversation” on Thursday for Bergen-Lafayette residents to voice their concerns on the Liberty State Park Protection Act. Instead, the Ward F community meeting sparked controversy when the roughly 200 community members attending the virtual event had their audios muted and the meeting’s moderator Arnold Stovell, panelist Bruce Alston, and Councilman Robinson were the only ones permitted to speak. Still intent on being heard, many of the silenced attendees held up makeshift signs to their screens for the three speakers (and for one another) to see.
“Tonight, I’m going to ask everyone to be respectful, but I want all three sides of truth and honesty to come out,” Councilman Robinson said. “I believe Liberty State Park is the best park in the world. I believe it should be for all of the people. I want everyone respectful so that all of our voices can be heard to come to some kind of happy medium. I want to hear what the community has to say.”
“How is this a community conversation when only three people speak?” community member Ryan Moser wrote in the meeting’s chat room.
Privatizing a State Park
The Jersey City Council meets next week to vote on whether or not to support the Liberty State Park Protection Act. This would prevent further privatization of the park’s 1,200 acres, some of which already house the Liberty House restaurant, Liberty Landing Marina and Liberty National Golf Course owned entirely by billionaire Paul Fireman. Among its protections would be the Caven Point Peninsula, a wildlife estuary that lies next to the course. The protection act would extinguish Fireman’s proposed plan to extend his golf course and turn Caven Point into three golf holes with a spectacular view of the New York Skyline to lure PGA golfers.
“The fear of those who are accustomed to the status quo are putting forth a story that suddenly it’s going to be privatized,” Stovell said. “We’re talking about a state park meant to be enjoyed by the citizens of New Jersey. Jersey City is one of the most diverse cities in the country.
There’s no reason one set of people should be making the decisions.”
The issue of privatization has to do with selling off parcels of Liberty State Park to the highest bidder, and the protection act would prohibit further privatization to protect Caven Point Peninsula’s wildlife refuge. Alston seemed to confuse the wildlife refuge with areas of the park that he said are contaminated and in need of remediation.
“I’m going to keep saying this: New Jersey is the only place I know that will pass legislation to protect contaminated land,” Alston said. “I’m not saying give anything to Liberty National (Golf Course). I never had a conversation with Liberty National. When it held the Barclays event, we believe black people were shut out from vending opportunities and jobs to have that PGA event. I have no relationship with any developer or Mr. Fireman.”
One community member held a sign, “How much is Fireman paying you?”
“I haven’t received a dime from him,” Stovell said in response. “People were making it seem that because he has money, his intent is to take over the park. Aside from the fact that’s really ridiculous, what’s more important is the association of all people with money being bad. The things that he has offered to do would benefit the community. I’m seeing things with other billionaires that are helping the community. You need a millionaire or billionaire to get something done. We need to stop this nonsense that there’s a push by Fireman to privatize the park. It’s coded racism.”
Viewing the meeting, DK said, in the chat room: “Such BS. Suddenly the answer to racial equality is an expanded golf course?”
Evelyn Ibarra of Jersey City expressed her opinion in the online chat room: “This is a huge outrage, this entire meeting.”
The Master Plan of 1977
Stovell brought up the 1977 master plan for Liberty State Park that was created with input from community groups. Since then, all that’s changed, he said.
“What was the sense of having a master plan if it never was going to be followed, never going to be implemented,” Alston added. “The 1977 master plan promised people of Jersey City retail shops, restaurants, ball fields, and tennis courts. This park is big enough to have everything. If it takes public-private partnerships to get it done, that’s something we need to explore.”
Meanwhile, there have been several additions to Liberty State Park since the 1977 master plan, was written, notably the Liberty Science Center, which was built in 1993.
Alston said forcing Ward F residents to accept the Liberty State Park Protection Act without their input was a “Trump-like moment” and referred to a comment by right-wing commentator Laura Ingraham who told NBA star LeBron James no one cared about his political opinions.
“Our community needs to have the opportunity to state what we want to have inside Liberty State Park,” Alston said. “There should not be any legislation proposed until legislators come to Jersey City. This is the systematic marginalization of black and brown people. I was very disappointed with Assemblyman Raj Mukherji. He was going to support some type of legislation. Assemblyman Mukherji, Senators (Loretta) Weinberg, and (Brian) Stack, you need to review that master plan before we decide anyone passes legislation. You’re going to push something on Black people and then say Black Lives Matter. This is what is being said: ‘Shut up and dribble’.”
Some supporters Friends of Liberty State Park protested that Sam Pesin was not part of the event even though the flyer advertised him as a panelist.
“We invited Sam, but he did not want to be a part of it,” Stovell said. “So, I left it alone. Basically, it’s not about Sam, it’s about this community having this conversation.”
Pesin did attend the virtual meeting and later said Stovell barred him from speaking.
“I never indicated I was not going to the meeting,” Pesin said. “They totally lied by saying I refused to participate. Then they muted me and blocked me from writing anything in the chat room. The meeting was a sham. Last night they expressed a lot of distortions, falsehoods and lies.”
Pesin clarified the confusion about Caven Point and Alston’s description of it as contaminated land. He said the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) does not require any further remediation of Caven Point which was cleaned up in 2004. If Fireman does a land grab of Caven Point for a golf course, golf is an active recreation and the land would need remediation if golf holes are put there, Pesin said.
“Caven Point is a priceless, natural habitat,” Pesin said. “The sign at the entrance states it’s a, migratory bird habitat and nesting area. It’s also an urban, environmental education resource. Over 600 students a year go out there for programs, and it’s a nature sanctuary enjoyed by a few thousand people a year for bird watching and for families to enjoy a peaceful place.”
Local historian and former vice president of the Friends of Liberty State Park Mandy Edgecombe attended last night’s virtual meeting, but her audio was muted, too.
“I was muted, and the chat was disabled the entire time except for the end,” Edgecombe said. “Then you saw it explode. They turned it off after five minutes.”
You could see through the lies, Edgecomb said of the meeting last night.
“The entire script comes from Paul Fireman’s lobbyists, River Crossing Strategy Group,” Edgecombe said. “It is owned by Eric Shuffler, the same lobbyist that got Mayor Fulop elected and Governor Phil Murphy elected. (Last night) they made completely false claims, claims that are boastful enough and interesting enough to catch people’s ears. It’s a marketing campaign. They’re using Black Lives Matter issues to attack Sam.”
Edgecombe said she doesn’t understand why Fireman would want to destroy Caven Point to install three golf holes when he already has a hole right behind Caven Point.
“He has a hole, he just wants more,” Edgecombe said.
There was no clear reason why the meeting ran 1 1/2 hours and yet no community members were invited to speak. The flyer stated the Zoom meeting would be from 6:30-8:30 p.m., but it ended at 8 pm. In order to have the 200 meeting attendees speak—it was billed as a community conversation, after all—Robinson could have extended the meeting to hear what they had to say since this was his original intention when he asked the City Council to table the protection act resolution.
“It was this conversation between two people trying to flood our communities in Ward A and Ward F with lies,” Edgecombe said. “Most of their platform that the south side of Jersey City is voiceless with Liberty State Park and their concerns are not listened to, is just an attack. The voices of the south side were on that meeting, and they were holding up signs. People had to hold up signs on their videos on the Zoom chat to be heard. It was like a protest. Everybody on the meeting said our voices are right here, we see through this, we see there’s some kind of agenda. It was a complete sham. They did a really good job of embarrassing themselves. They have no platform. No valid claims. They did not invite the DEP when their questions were for the DEP What are you pushing here? You want the south side to have a voice, but all you’re doing is attacking people and not saying anything valid or getting anything done. Jersey City doesn’t swallow pills that easily.”
The City Council votes on the Liberty State Protection Act at its next virtual meeting held Wed., July 15 at 6 p.m.
Some educators want state to more clearly map out what school will look like in the fall before committing to coming back
This story was written and produced by NJ Spotlight. It is being republished under a special NJ News Commons content-sharing agreement related to COVID-19 coverage. To read more, visit njspotlight.com.
A great deal has been said about reopening New Jersey schools in the fall while ensuring that children remain healthy and safe. But worries are also surfacing about what going back will mean for teachers — and even whether enough of them will be willing to return to the classroom.
Steve Beatty, a top officer of the New Jersey Education Association, said Thursday there is growing concern over teachers who are hesitant to return to the classroom and unwilling to take the health risk for either themselves or their families.
“That’s a real question, will we have enough educators when we return, whatever those conditions are?” said Beatty, the secretary-treasurer of the state’s dominant teachers union in a press call on school building safety.
“Look, we are facing a shortage of teachers under normal circumstances in New Jersey and nationwide,” he said. “So this crisis is only going to exacerbate that.”
Planning in face of uncertainty
A sampling of districts contacted Thursday weren’t reporting any looming teacher exodus as yet, but some said that their staff’s worries are central to their planning for the return of school in whatever form.
Under the state’s guidelines, districts will be required to open for at least some in-person instruction in the fall, but likely in a hybrid model that mixes in-class and remote instruction.
For any schools to open, they will be required to follow health and safety guidelines such as practicing social distancing, wearing face masks, screening for symptoms and disinfecting common areas. That likely means staggered schedules and other creative solutions.
But the state has also left it to districts’ discretion how to meet those safety guidelines, with their plans expected to be finalized by early August.
Rocco Tomazic, superintendent of Freehold Borough schools, said he has heard from only one teacher who plans to retire rather than return. But he said his local association has made clear its concerns and has been working closely with his administrators in coming up with a plan for reopening.
Tough choices facing administrators
Tomazic said the choices are difficult. Keeping it to as much remote instruction as possible means more hardship on families and child care. Bringing students back into the building means more risk of contagion.
“Finding something in between may be a compromise, but keeps all of the problems around to some degree,” he said by email. “The whole thing is a dilemma, a problem with no good solution.”
This is hardly unique to New Jersey, as worries have surfaced nationwide among educators as states announce their plans for the fall. Virtually all of them so far include at least some provision for in-person instruction.
The tension has only gone up with President Donald Trump saying he would demand schools fully reopen or potentially lose federal funding, although his administration has since backed off on the latter threat.
In a poll by USA Today in early May, one in five teachers surveyed nationally said at the time that they would not be returning to the classroom under the current conditions. Not much appears to have improved, either, as surveys from individual districts and states have reiterated their worries.
Just this week, the Chicago Teachers Union released a survey in which 85% of its members said they “should not or might not go back to work in the fall without a detailed plan and resources that will help guarantee the safe re-opening of our schools.”
In New Jersey, other superintendents said they also have been working closely with their unions to address the concerns.
“There are definitely staff members with medical concerns that have raised concerns about returning,” said David Aderhold, superintendent of West Windsor Plainsboro schools.
“Further, there are staff members with medically compromised loved ones that they either live with or have responsibilities to care for that have raised concerns about reopening plans.”
The New Jersey School Boards Association said it would soon be surveying its members about a range of issues, including teacher retention. In its own blueprint for reopening schools, it cited the example of New Orleans’ loss of teachers after Hurricane Katrina and called for the state to ease requirements for incoming teachers.
The NJEA doesn’t look like it will ease the pressure, either, and Beatty pointed to the state to do more in its safety guidelines than provide districts wide discretion. He said it’s not just potential retirements but also those who are just hesitant and want protection for their own health or their families’ health. The state so far has said no teacher would be forced into the classroom against his or her wishes, but what that means is unclear.
“There can be no flexibility when it comes to the health and safety of our students, our educators and everyone in those buildings,” he said. “In the absence of authoritative state guidelines, it is driving chaos and our members are worried.”
“We need mandates, not maybes, from those who can give us more guidelines.”
On Monday, Jersey City Times sat down with Jersey City Business Administrator Brian Platt, to discuss in detail the city’s plans for electric vehicles [EVs]. From charging stations to electric garbage trucks to electric bikes, the administration has big plans.
JCT: So, I’m sitting here with Brian Platt, Business Administrator for Jersey City, and he is heading up the effort in Jersey City to bring electric charging stations for electric vehicles to Jersey City, and I wanted to hear about what he’s been doing. So, Brian first of all, just by way of background, you’ve been Business Administrator for how long?
BP: Just over two years now, but I’ve worked for the city for seven.
JCT: And when you started with the city you were…
BP: I started in the mayor’s office and moved on to helping start the city’s first office of innovation. I was the founder and original director of that office, and I became the city’s business administrator two years ago. That position is sort of like city manager or chief operating officer for the city.
JCT: Now it sounds like you’ve kind of expanded that portfolio in that you’re not just the CFO [chief financial officer], you’re working on technology and operational issues. First of all, how do you find time to do both? I mean, it sounds like that’s a lot to work on.
BP: Yeah. I would say that the main part of the job is actually finding ways to make our government operation more responsive to the needs of our residents and also more sustainable and efficient in every way possible. And that includes not just the finances of the government—italso includes literally the motors and the mechanical tools that the city has as well.
JCT: When did you start working on electric vehicles and the infrastructure for them?
BP: Sure. For them, it was about three or four years ago that we started having very serious conversations about transitioning our municipal fleet to a more efficient mode of transportation. Not just the type of motor, but the size of the vehicles and the number of vehicles that we have as a city. We’ve been looking at how many vehicles we have in reducing that number. We’ve been looking at smaller vehicles, and we’ve been looking at electric vehicles, obviously. That’s not just passenger vehicles. You’ve seen outside city hall here that we have our first four electric vehicles that are passenger cars that operate at city hall. We’ve also been looking at police vehicles, heavy duty vehicles like garbage trucks and…and anything across the spectrum of types of vehicles that we have.
JCT: So, what were the first electric vehicles that the city purchased?
BP: The first four electric vehicles that we purchased were Nissan Leafs. We got them last year. We replaced eight gasoline powered vehicles at city hall with those four electric vehicles. The vehicles they replaced were 15-plus years old, SUVs, and not in the best working condition.
JCT: And who was using those vehicles?
BP: Employees in city hall. It was anything from an inspector in the tax assessor’s office to someone in the law department that had to go to court to defend the city in a case or something like that. So, varied quite a bit.
JCT: Just general purpose?
BP: General purpose…right, right. And one of the other initiatives that this includes is a car sharing system where instead of having eight or 10 or 12 vehicles at city hall assigned to individual people, we have a software-based solution that allows us to share the use of those vehicles over a broader number of people and increase the efficiency of how many people use each vehicle.
JCT: And you’ve had these Nissan Leafs for…did you say two years?
BP: It’s about a year, a year and a half, something like that.
JCT: How has that been? How is the reliability and cost?
BP: They’ve been great. We’ve had no issues with reliability at all. We’ve had zero maintenance, you know, electric vehicles in general have less maintenance. We’ve had zero things that we’ve had to do to the vehicles. They’ve sat there. We’ve had to wash them a couple of times. That’s about as far as we’ve gone with it. The adoption rate has been very fast and very smooth. We’ve had no issues with the users of the vehicles. They…after the first ride…they get it. It’s cleaner, it’s smoother, it’s quieter. And it’s simple to use. And, also we are now generating data that shows us how often employees are using the vehicles and when they’re using them. So, we now know a lot more about how many vehicles are really needed at city hall. It was harder before, for example, if I had a vehicle assigned to me, I used it once a week, maybe once every two weeks. Now I’m using a pool of vehicles that other people also use. So, yeah…it’s been a great transition.
JCT: Is there a plan to replace all of the ICE [internal combustion engine] vehicles with electric vehicles?
BP: Yeah. The mayor recently signed an executive order that aims to transition our municipal fleet to fully electric by 2030. The first phase of that transition is this year where 10 percent of all new vehicles will be electric where available. So, for example, there may not be a street sweeper or a certain type of cargo van or snow plow that we have a reasonable electric alternative that we won’t count in the number, but as many as we can basically are going to be electric.
JCT: So, this year, how many additional electric do we anticipate?
BP: At our last council meeting, we purchased eight more Nissan Leafs. Four of them are going to be general purpose or a variety of departments for them are going in to the police department as our first four police electric vehicles. We’re going to be using them in more of a support and backup capacity at first, just so we can get a good feel for them, how they’re used in the public safety perspective. There are of course, a lot of concerns and restraints around pursuit vehicles being electric across the country and across the world. So, we’re trying to work through all those issues.
JCT: And I assume you will be charging them using the city’s charging infrastructure?
Brian Platt charges Jersey City EV
BP: Yeah, so you’ll see behind city hall, we have four, well it’s two charging stations, four chargers for the four vehicles that we have at city hall. We have a handful of chargers already installed at our public works facility that will charge additional vehicles. And as we purchase more electric vehicles, we’re going to add more charters across the city. I should note also that the chargers at public works are powered by a 1.23 megawatt solar array on top of the building, which not only powers the building itself but also connects directly to those chargers.
JCT: So, talk to me a little bit about the cost so far. What do the Nissan Leafs cost the city?
BP: They cost a little more than a gas powered Nissan Leaf, but the maintenance costs and the usage, the energy costs are far lower, and they pay for themselves over just a couple of years.
JCT: Now, talk to me a little bit about the city’s plans when it comes to charging infrastructure for the city residents.
BP: I know you’re very interested in this.
JCT: I am.
JCT: So, we started this last year, installing electric vehicle charging infrastructure in public areas for public access as well. And you’ll see at city hall that one of the ways we’re doing this is pairing it with the charging infrastructure for municipal fleet vehicles. For example, behind city hall here, we have four charging ports for city vehicles and then two for public access. We have 12 spots across the city, right now, six chargers, each dual port that are designated for public access to charging. Some of them are still in the process of being installed, but for the most part, there are 12 across the city. The way that those spots work, we’re trying to incentivize and encourage people to purchase electric vehicles and own them in the city. And we do that by saying, as long as you are plugged in and charging, you can park there without any additional permits or fees associated with parking on the street. So, it’s…it’s in a sense a very low barrier to charge using our infrastructure on the street. We do charge a fee for the energy, but it’s a, you know, it’s a reasonable, it’s a dollar sixty an hour at this point.
JCT: It’s by the hour or…?
BP: By the hour…I think it’s a dollar sixty an hour.
JCT: And does one have to sign up for this…or go through a…
BP: They’re all on the ChargePoint network. So, you’ll be able to find them using the ChargePoint app if they’re being used or not. It also gives us…the ChargePoint app gives us great data as to who’s using them and when. And so, for example, at the charging station behind city hall with the two plugs we saw a very high adoption rate before Coronavirus, which led us to expand that location. We’re going to be shortly adding a second charging station because the usage was so high.
JCT: And there are different…there are different plugs for electric vehicles. How are you working that out? Tesla takes one type of plug, Nissan Leaf takes another, Chevy Bolt, takes another…
BP: We’re going with the standard ChargePoint level two plug…I forget the J-179…whatever it is.
JCT: And it works for…
BP: The adapters come with vehicles that would plug into that seamlessly. So, even if you have a Tesla, you’ll be able to very easily…the Tesla comes with the adapters and same with the Leaf. So pretty much any vehicle out there at this point will be able to use our infrastructure. It’s the level two…so it’s not the fast charge.
JCT: Right.
BP: The fast charge…the charging stations are much more expensive to install and, you know, we’re sort of taking it slow to make sure that there’s demand for this. So, we want to make sure that there’s a market and a base and users in Jersey City before we start to really spend a lot of money on this.
JCT: Now how many miles on average per hour of charge can somebody put in their car?
BP: Twenty five miles per hour.
JCT: For a level two.
BP: Level two. Our Nissan Leafs…they get about a 150-mile range. So, you know, a full charge is overnight. So that’s the idea that you could plug in, you know, when you get here in the morning, if you work here, and by the time you get out of work, you’ve got a full charge, and same thing at night. If you’re a resident here, you can plug in at night. The next morning it’s full and ready to go.
JCT: And so long as you’re charging, you can remain?
BP: So long as you’re charging you can remain there. Although, as I mentioned earlier, there is a fee for the energy at this point. The purpose for the fee is to incentivize a little bit of turnover in the spots, but also to help us pay for the infrastructure, and the way we’ve calculated the fee also allows us to pay off the cost of installing the charging infrastructure over a reasonable amount of time—about eight to 10 years—given the usage that we’re seeing.
JCT: So, the city is spending some money up front to get this system in place?
BP: Yep.
JCT: How many chargers does the city expect to have over what period of time?
BP: I wouldn’t say that we have necessarily a set target goal at this point, but we’re doing this more based on demand from our communities. If people are asking us for this and more vehicles show up and, you know, we’re seeing a higher demand, we’re going to install more of them. We didn’t want to force it in neighborhoods necessarily without having buy-in from the community. So, you’re not seeing it pop up in places where people don’t know about it. We’re asking our local neighborhood associations and residents where they are and where they would like these.
JCT: Is there anything beyond this 2030 goal of a hundred percent electrification of the fleet and the charging network that you’re planning on doing?
BP: Yeah, the other big thing that we’re working on here is the procurement of electric garbage trucks. We are going to be one of the first municipalities and government agencies in the country to have electric garbage trucks. We won a grant from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection about a year-and-a-half ago for over $2 million to pay for six electric garbage trucks for the city. And, and the reason why we are so focused on garbage trucks is… one is these are some of the oldest vehicles that we have, but also they’re the highest polluting vehicles that we have on the road. So, if there’s any way for us to reduce carbon emissions and reduce the most harmful types of emissions and the most toxic emission, it’s our garbage trucks and our heavy duty vehicles.
JCT: How many garbage trucks does the city currently have?
BP: The city only has eight right now in its fleet. We contract out the bulk of our waste removal and recycling removal operations to an outside vendor. But we do a lot of daytime service to fill in the gaps. We’ll cover the parks. We’ll come back to small business districts and do another round of garbage collection from the garbage cans. So, there’s a lot of other waste removal that we do in addition to the regular residential pickups.
JCT: Is there any plan to incentivize the outside carting vendors?
BP: Yeah, it;s an ongoing conversation if…we’re hoping to move in that direction at some point. We are currently in an RFP [request for proposals] process for renewing that contract, and we’re hoping to get something out of it. But we’ll see where it goes.
JCT: Where did these trucks come from? These electric garbage trucks?
BP: There are only two vendors that we know of in the world right now that are making electric garbage trucks. One of them doesn’t have a model that is ready for the U.S., and the other is BYD, which is a Chinese company, and they actually don’t even make the whole truck. Part of it…the loader…the rear loader part of it is a separate company. They only make the truck chassis, and then we have to retrofit it to become a garbage truck. So, yeah, it’s a Chinese company. They’ve been building chassis like this for a long time. The range on these is more than sufficient for the routes that we run, and they will connect seamlessly into our charging infrastructure at our public works facility, which again is powered by the 1.23-megawatt solar array on top of the building.
JCT: Do you have any idea off the top of your head what the cost to the city has been over the last couple of years for this electric vehicle initiative? And what do you think this is costing in total?
BP: You know it’s not a number that we’re tracking directly because although we’re investing funds upfront, over time we expect this to be a cost reduction. And we expect that because the ownership and maintenance costs of electric vehicles is lower. The energy cost is lower. The transfer of energy from energy to motion is much higher for electric vehicles. So, you know, there are a lot of benefits beyond the initial upfront costs that we see that makes it more valuable.
JCT: The grant for the garbage trucks, is that 100 percent of the cost of these?
BP: It’s over 90 percent of the cost. There were some remaining costs that we will cover related to some of the charging infrastructure that we’re installing there. But for the most part the grant does cover the maintenance.
JCT: Anything else that people should know?
BP: Yeah, we also have one grant for electric vehicle charging stations across the city, and we are installing them with the help of those grants. But those grants for approximately $5,000 a station are not nearly enough to cover the cost of the charging stations. So, we are using some city dollars, some city capital dollars to…
JCT: So, what does a station cost?
BP: The hardware itself that you see in the street is within the five [$5,000] to $8,000 range for the unit that goes on top of the sidewalk. The larger—the bulk of the cost is the electric infrastructure that leads up to that station. And depending upon where the power supply is in the street and how much excavation is needed to run the power lines into the stations, it could be, it could be 30 [$30,000] or $40,000.
JCT: For each station.
BP: Yes, for each station. So ,when you look at, for example, the Marin location behind city hall, you know, the excavation was only one dig. And then we actually recently installed two stations for municipal vehicles, and it will now be two for public use. So, the cost spread out over those four stations makes the per station cost a little lower, but it’s still…it’s not cheap.
JCT: But the idea is that the city gets a payback which covers the cost?
BP: Exactly, exactly right.
JCT: Over a number of years.
BP: And that dollar sixty an hour may…or may not sound like a lot, but over time it adds up, and it’ll help us cover the cost of the stations.
JCT: Anything else you can think of?
BP: Oh, yes. So, we, we also, I’m sure, you know, launched a few months ago a rideshare service powered by Via. And it’s a very unique transit option that we have in the city focusing on the outer neighborhoods of beyond Downtown and Journal Square. We’ve also committed to making that fleet electric as soon as feasible. We’ve started with…the system launched with over 10 percent of the fleet as electric. And we are hoping to get that to a hundred percent.
JCT: The via fleet is currently 10 percent electric sound electric?
BP: Yeah, 10 percent electric.
JCT: And these vehicles would be provided by Via?
BP: We have a turnkey solution from Via meaning that we pay them a flat amount and they, they handle procuring the vehicles, training the drivers, covering insurance, maintaining and managing the software, everything that’s needed to set…this software, this service up… yes… that’s all included in the cost of it. I will say also that there aren’t a lot of good passenger van options out there right now that are electric. In fact, there are no good ones. So, we’re trying to cobble it together with what we can find. It seems like in the next year or so, there’s going to be a few other options on the market. That’ll help us convert the full fleet to electric, right?
JCT: What about bicycles since we’re on this. Anything happening with the electric bikes though, or is that still in the planning phase? Cause I understand there’s a process with Hoboken going on.
BP: Yeah, we’re doing a new RFP for a bike share. Before the RFP process started, our existing vendor City Bike did commit to us that they would be bringing electric pedal-assist bikes to Jersey City as they did in New York. Assuming if City Bike wins this contract again, they would continue with those plans. But it’s too early to say right now given the contract process going on.
JCT: Is it safe to assume though that whoever wins the contract, there will be an electric component?
BP: Yes, we’ve asked in the RFP that whichever vendor is awarded this contract makes every effort to bring as many of those as possible to Jersey City.
