Reflections on Sandy; December 9, 2012

In the wake of Storm Sandy, the Asbury Park Press asked me and several others to submit thoughts (in about 500 words) on current New Jersey law guaranteeing property owners the right to rebuild after a coastal storm. The columns ran on the APP's Op Ed page on Sunday December 9th (though they were apparently posted online a few days earlier). My comments follow and can also be found at this link:
 http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/news/newsstories/12-12-07_AsburyParkPress.pdf

Remembrances of Things to Come

    by John Weingart*

At a 1982 forum on Long Beach Island commemorating the 20^th anniversary of the last major storm to wreck havoc on the Jersey shore, panelists stressed that public policy toward coastal development should be determined only after a full acknowledgement of all costs and benefits. Former Governor Richard Hughes and Neil Frank, director of the National Hurricane Center, were among the speakers who agreed that the question was not if the weather would ever again lead to such damage, but only when.  

Six weeks ago, they were proven correct. But while the issues raised by Hurricane Sandy are not new, responding to them will require absorbing new data and reevaluating previous assumptions. Here are five observations.

First, the number of people who have enjoyed the shore since the 1962 storm obviously is much greater after 50 years than it was three decades ago. And many of the fond memories of vacations, weekends and day-trips undoubtedly center around houses, boardwalks and roads built in risky – and perhaps now devastated – locations.

Second, we now know that shore protection can be effective. Though such measures were memorably defined by the late coastal environmentalist Dery Bennett as “using taxpayer money to throw rocks in the ocean,” preliminary assessments from Sandy show that homes and businesses located behind well-designed dune creation and beach nourishment projects fared far better than structures lacking that protection.

Third, with each project costing tens of millions of dollars, the federal government will be able to support few of them - particularly given the vast array of other needs competing for increasingly limited public funds,

Fourth, where shore protection can be funded, the responsibilities of the towns and individual property owners who would most directly benefit will need to increase. Local shares should include financial contributions and binding commitments to dune maintenance and the provision of meaningful beach access for non-residents.

And, fifth, particularly in areas unlikely to gain enhanced shore protection, the prospect of new building and rebuilding will have to be reassessed by legislators, regulators and insurance providers as well as property owners.

  

The current law guaranteeing the right to rebuild was passed in 1993. It was, in part, a reaction against an earlier proposal aimed in the opposite direction that would have prohibited the reconstruction of any building more than 50 percent destroyed by a coastal storm.

Watching TV in the days and weeks after Sandy, I saw why the 1993 law is unlikely to be repealed. As people who were suddenly homeless or near-homeless reached out to President Obama and Governor Christie, it would have been (or at least seemed) heartless for either leader to say anything other than, “We will help you rebuild.”

Nevertheless, as the climate continues to change and the sea level continues to rise, we can’t    count on the next hurricanes delaying their arrival for decades as Sandy did. Property owners and government officials, even as the right to rebuild may be maintained, should recognize that in many shore locations to do so will not be the right decision.

  

*John Weingart, Associate Director of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University, helped develop New Jersey’s coastal management program while working in the NJ DEP from 1975 to 1994.

New Jersey's New Congressional Delegation

NJ's New Congressional Delegation

One of the many interesting election outcomes this week is the difference between New Jersey's statewide votes and the composition of the delegation voters selected for the House of Representatives. On a day when almost 60% of the the state's voters chose President Obama (58%) and Senator Menendez (59%) over their Republican challengers, they opted for a House delegation that will be 50% Democrats and 50% Republicans.

This discrepancy is largely if not entirely due to the boundaries of the state's 12 new districts, down from 13 as a result of the national population shifts reflected in the 2010 census. While New Jersey's redistricting process is better than those in many other states, it has resulted in districts that did not mirror statewide preferences. At least this year, the state's voters would have been more accurately represented by Congressional boundaries that could have led to 7 Democratic representatives (58.31%) and 5 Republicans (41.69%).*

The Congressional map in New Jersey has also resulted in 12 districts where the incumbents are very unlikely to be defeated - at least in a general election - for the remainder of this decade. The average margin of victory for the 12 winners was 34%. The closest contest was Congressman Jon Runyon's defeat of Democratic challenger Shelly Adler by 53% to 45%. At the other end of the spectrum, New Jersey's only new member, Donald Payne Jr., beat his Republican rival Brian Keleman 87% to 11%.

The potential negative implication is that New Jersey's House members will have good reason to be more concerned about positioning themselves to avoid or counter a possible primary challenge than by any need to moderate their positions in ways that might attract more general election voters who are not of their party. On the plus side, but not likely to come close to outweighing the negative, is that the state's Congressmen all now have the opportunity to focus their energies less on fund-raising and campaigning and more on committee work and legislation in Washington and constituent service in New Jersey.

* One could argue that the boundaries for New Jersey's State Legislative Districts have the opposite flaw since in 2009 as Republican Chris Christie captured 48.8% to be elected Governor over Democrat Jon Corzine and Independent Chris Daggett, voters chose a legislature that was 58.3% Democratic with a total of 70 Democrats and 50 Republicans.

Mr Shapiro Goes To Washington

         [Brandeis Magazine; Summer 2012]

             http://www.brandeis.edu/magazine/2012/summer/the-brief/shapiro.html

Failed Nominees & Second Chances;

              [Star-Ledger; July 31, 2012]

                    http://blog.nj.com/njv_guest_blog/2012/07/christies_failed_supreme_court.html

As a one-time failed gubernatorial nominee, I applaud the reported efforts by Governor Christie and his staff to find new government positions for Bruce Harris and Phillip Kwon. My story involved a lower profile post almost 20 years ago but had a similar potential to unfairly harm me had the administration at the time forgotten about me or deemed me untouchable once my nomination had been rejected by the Senate.

In 1994, early in her first term, Governor Whitman nominated me to head the Division of Consumer Affairs. The announcement generated considerable positive press coverage in part because I was not of the governor’s party and this particular job had come to be viewed as a political plum ever since it had helped one of my would-be predecessors - Millicent Fenwick – launch a successful Congressional career.

But as with Governor Christie’s two Supreme Court nominees, the legislature did not greet news of my selection with enthusiasm. Even though the majority and the governor were all Republicans in 1994, party leaders in my county felt their new governor should have picked one of their own for the position. Senate leaders made clear that if my nomination was brought to a vote, I would not be confirmed. While it took me several weeks to accept this reality, I eventually withdrew my name.

Those weeks did have moments that were amusing, at least in retrospect. I reached out to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee I knew to try to lobby on my own behalf. One of the Republicans I spoke with told me he was “thrilled” to see me chosen and thought I would do a great job. When I then asked if I could count on his vote in the committee, he replied amiably, “Oh, I’ll do whatever they tell me.”

My home senator held a press conference to say that he would vote against me, not because I was unqualified, but because he thought me so good at my job as an assistant commissioner in the Department of Environmental Protection. The Star-Ledger story on his statement featured a photo of me over the caption “too valuable.”

But there were more serious impacts. Within the DEP, I used the opportunity of what appeared to be exit interviews to offer a candid critique of department management. Although the commissioner kindly accepted my continuance on his staff when the Consumer Affairs position became unattainable, our relationship was, from that moment forward, different and far from ideal.

My relationships with others also subtly changed. Colleagues who, after 19 years, had taken my presence in DEP for granted, now wondered how long I would last and where I might go next.

Several months later, my name was put in the mix for a position directing a state commission charged with finding a location for the safe storage of low-level radioactive waste. I became interested and the commission members decided I was their candidate, but a director could not be chosen without the support of the governor, who had the power to veto any action through the commission’s minutes. Governor Whitman, in quickly letting it be known that she favored my selection, gave me the opportunity to hold a fascinating job for the next four years that led to experiences, friendships and perspectives I value and would otherwise have missed.

I don’t know how Bruce Harris and Phillip Kwon have experienced their far more public time in the awkward prominence that many failed nominees receive and neither seek nor deserve. The Division of Consumer Affairs is not the Supreme Court. Perhaps neither will come to feel, as I did, that the job presented as a consolation prize is actually better than the one they first thought was theirs. I am glad, however, that other opportunities are apparently being offered to them. It is good to see Governor Christie implicitly acknowledging, as Governor Whitman did in my case, that amidst all the differing viewpoints and political tensions that make governing so challenging, there are real people whose willingness to devote part or all of their careers to public service should be championed and rewarded.

- John Weingart

Finding Jobs for Nominees who Failed

John Weingart*

            Op Ed Column; The Star-Ledger; July 30, 2012

As a one-time failed gubernatorial nominee, I applaud the reported efforts by Governor Christie and his staff to find new government positions for Bruce Harris and Phillip Kwon. My story involved a lower profile post almost 20 years ago but had a similar potential to unfairly harm me had the administration at the time forgotten about me or deemed me untouchable once my nomination had been rejected by the Senate.

In 1994, early in her first term, Governor Whitman nominated me to head the Division of Consumer Affairs. The announcement generated considerable positive press coverage in part because I was not of the governor’s party and this particular job had come to be viewed as a political plum ever since it had helped one of my would-be predecessors - Millicent Fenwick – launch a successful Congressional career.

But as with Governor Christie’s two Supreme Court nominees, the legislature did not greet news of my selection with enthusiasm. Even though the majority and the governor were all Republicans in 1994, party leaders in my county felt their new governor should have picked one of their own for the position. Senate leaders made clear that if my nomination was brought to a vote, I would not be confirmed. While it took me several weeks to accept this reality, I eventually withdrew my name.

Those weeks did have moments that were amusing, at least in retrospect. I reached out to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee I knew to try to lobby on my own behalf. One of the Republicans I spoke with told me he was “thrilled” to see me chosen and thought I would do a great job. When I then asked if I could count on his vote in the committee, he replied amiably, “Oh, I’ll do whatever they tell me.”

 My home senator held a press conference to say that he would vote against me, not because I was unqualified, but because he thought me so good at my job as an assistant commissioner in the Department of Environmental Protection. The Star-Ledger story on his statement featured a photo of me over the caption “too valuable.”

But there were more serious impacts. Within the DEP, I used the opportunity of what appeared to be exit interviews to offer a candid critique of department management. Although the commissioner kindly accepted my continuance on his staff when the Consumer Affairs position became unattainable, our relationship was, from that moment forward, different and far from ideal.

My relationships with others also subtly changed. Colleagues who, after 19 years, had taken my presence in DEP for granted, now wondered how long I would last and where I might go next.

Several months later, my name was put in the mix for a position directing a state commission charged with finding a location for the safe storage of low-level radioactive waste. I became interested and the commission members decided I was their candidate, but a director could not be chosen without the support of the governor, who had the power to veto any action through the commission’s minutes. Governor Whitman, in quickly letting it be known that she favored my selection, gave me the opportunity to hold a fascinating job for the next four years that led to experiences, friendships and perspectives I value and would otherwise have missed.

I don’t know how Bruce Harris and Phillip Kwon have experienced their far more public time in the awkward prominence that many failed nominees receive and neither seek nor deserve. The Division of Consumer Affairs is not the Supreme Court. Perhaps neither will come to feel, as I did, that the job presented as a consolation prize is actually better than the one they first thought was theirs. I am glad, however, that other opportunities are apparently being offered to them. It is good to see Governor Christie implicitly acknowledging, as Governor Whitman did in my case, that amidst all the differing viewpoints and political tensions that make governing so challenging, there are real people whose willingness to devote part or all of their careers to public service should be championed and rewarded.

*Associate Director, Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University

Governors Becoming Vice Presidents? Rarely Rewarding

]

        [Star-Ledger; July 15, 2012

           http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/news/newsstories/12-07-15_StarLedger.pdf

Other Older Essays

    Choices for ‘Official’ State Song Should Come with Term Limits

            NJSpotlight.com (January 5, 2015)

  

 States’ Voter ID Laws: Could New Jersey Be Next to Implement Strict Measures?

            Rutgers Today (August 31, 2012)

Failed Nominations and Second Chances            

            The Star-Ledger (July 31, 2012)

   “Mr. Shapiro Goes to Washington,” book review of The Last Great Senate;

            Brandeis Magazine; Waltham, MA (Summer 2012)

    Why Woodrow Wilson Guthrie?

            Governors Journal, Hartford, CN (March 22, 2012)

    A Little Less Courtesy Could Go A Long Way   

            The Star-Ledger; December 2, 2009

    “The First 2009 Post-Election Analysis”

            The Asbury Park Press (October 2, 2009) and www.InTheLobby.net (October 13, 2009)

   “Wrong To Pick On Highlands Plan”      

            The Star-Ledger; July 28, 2008

   “West Wing Writers Looking Like Prophets”      

            The Star-Ledger; January 8, 2008

   “Is This A New Era of Positive Politics?” 

            The Star-Ledger; November 12, 2006

   “Harmony for an Official State Song; A Proposal for Rotation, Marketing and Term Limits”

            The New York Times; November 24, 2002

   “A Prayer For The City”    Book Review

            The New Jersey Reporter; March 1998              

   “Bump In The Night”         Commentary on the New Jersey Civil Service System;

            The New Jersey Reporter; July 1996

    “CAFRA Amendments: A Surprising Year for Progress”

 New Jersey Conference of Mayors Quarterly Magazine; Autumn 1993

   “What Voters Don’t Know Can Hurt Them”      

            The New Jersey Reporter; June 1985

   “Senate Appointment: A Dead End?”     

            The New York Times; September 27, 1981     

     “Time Can Change Everything: Low-Level Radioactive Waste Amid Changing Realities”

            Radwaste Solutions’ May/June 2001 

   “Low-Level Waste and You: Perfect Together”   

            The Star-Ledger; December 29, 1995

    “It’s Our Waste; Why Not Our Backyard?”        

            New Jersey Environment; Winter 1996

          

    “The Need for Environmental Education”          

              Humanistic Judaism; Spring 1993

                                   

     “The State’s Reaction to Sea Level Rise”

            The Bulletin of the New Jersey Academy of Science; Fall 1986             

   “Regional Planning for the Urban Waterfront”

               Coastal Zone ’80: Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management;

               November 1980

    “The Unforeseen Path to Regional Management of the New Jersey Pinelands”

            Proceedings of the Cooperative Management of Coastal Ecosystems Workshop;

                Georgia Conservancy; November 1980

   “Urban Coastal Management, The New Jersey Experience”

            Resource Allocation Issues in the Coastal Environment; The Coastal Society; Nov 1979        

   “CAFRA and Coastal Zone Management”                     

            New Jersey Outdoors; October 1975

  

Why Woodrow Wilson Guthrie?

     

[Governors Journal (now defunct); March 22, 2012]

Woody Guthrie’s full name was Woodrow Wilson Guthrie. Born on July 14, 1912, the rambling musician, writer and activist’s 100^th birthday was noted in 2012 with concerts, new recordings including several that set some of his writings to music for the first time, and other tributes and appraisals.  It also led me to wonder why a couple, living in Okemah, Oklahoma, chose to name their son for the then-governor of New Jersey.

Had his parents been fans of William Howard Taft who was President at the time, the man who wrote “This Land Is Your Land” might be remembered as Billy or perhaps Howie. He could have been Lee Guthrie if they had looked that summer to their own Governor, a Democrat named Lee Cruce whose first major success, according to Wikipidea, was establishing Oklahoma’s Department of Highways. But, instead, they were drawn to the Governor working in Trenton, a state capital Mapquest calculates as 1,487 miles from their home in Okemah.**

While Woody’s father Charles was politically active and had been elected District County Clerk in Oklahoma, the names he and his wife Nora selected for their other children – Roy, Clara, George and Mary Josephine – had no known political associations. So why name their middle child for Wilson?

When Woody Guthrie was born on July 14, 1912, Woodrow Wilson had been Governor of New Jersey for less than two years but he had received some national notice as an effective, reform-minded, progressive leader. What must have elevated his name in the consciousness of the very expectant parents in Oklahoma, however, was the drama of the Democratic Party’s national convention that only 12 days earlier had selected Wilson as its Presidential nominee.

Held in Baltimore from June 25^th through July 2^nd, the frontrunner going into the convention among half a dozen announced candidates was the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Champ Clark from Missouri. Clark received 440 votes to Wilson’s second-place tally of 324 on the first ballot but, because Democratic party rules at the time required support from two-thirds of the delegates, Clark was well short of the 694 he needed to secure the nomination.

As voting continued in subsequent ballots, it seemed that Clark would get to the magic number and Wilson prepared a concession statement. But when Clark picked up New York City’s delegation controlled by Tammany Hall, it cost him the backing of William Jennings Bryan who until then had then been neutral. Bryan, still popular despite having been the party’s unsuccessful nominee in three of the previous four elections, endorsed Wilson in a speech that denounced Clark as a candidate of Wall Street. The speech helped move enough delegates so that eventually – on the 46^th ballot – Wilson won the nomination. 

When Charles and Nora Guthrie’s baby was born less than two weeks later, they named him Woodrow and gave him Wilson as a middle name. And now, more than 100 years later, that baby is known and celebrated around the world as Woody.

Wilson went on to be elected President in November with 42% of the popular vote and 82% of the electors, defeating President Taft and former President Theodore Roosevelt as well as Socialist Party candidate Eugene Debs and Eugene Chafin of the Prohibition Party, while his namesake began a life that would be defined by both incredible personal tragedy and lasting musical contributions and cultural influence.

Coincidentally coinciding with Guthrie’s centennial birthday in 2012 was the unlikely but oft-mentioned possibility that the hundred-year anniversary of that election in 1912 might also include an open, multi-balloted party convention. If indeed no candidate had wrapped up the Republican nomination before that August when the party convened in Tampa, perhaps the resulting excitement would have led some young 21^st century parents to bring into the world a baby Mitt or Newt or Rick or Ron. Or, if history had truly repeated itself and a deadlocked convention had once again settled on the first-term Governor of New Jersey, perhaps we would have seen a spike that summer in the number of new babies named Christopher.

* John Weingart, Associate Director of the Eagleton Institute of Politics, is also the host of Music You Can’t Hear On The Radio, New Jersey’s oldest folk music and bluegrass radio program. This column which has been slightly updated here was also posted in 2012 in the blog on the show website at http://veryseldom.com/ and appeared in Governors Journal on March 22, 2012.

**My sources for this far from exhaustive research are not only Wikipedia and Mapquest, but also Joe Klein’s wonderful 1980 biography, Woody Guthrie; A Life (Alfred A. Knopf);  “Challenges of a New Century: Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Era,” a chapter by  John Milton Cooper, Jr in A Legacy of Leadership: Governors and American History, edited by Clayton McClure Brooks and published by the University of Pennsylvania Press in 2008; and an interesting piece of historical fiction called Memoirs of a Texan: Empire by Tim Murray, published by FastPencil.com.