BY JOYCE BLAY
Staff Writer
JACKSON — With Election Day, Nov. 2, less than a month away, Township Committee candidates Joseph Grisanti and Mark Seda made one last appeal for the job during a debate held at the Jackson Elks Club on Oct. 13.
The Jackson Chamber of Commerce sponsored the debate. Dennis Galvin, the chamber president, moderated the debate between the Democratic incumbent, Joseph Grisanti, and his Republican challenger Mark Seda.
Throughout the debate, Grisanti emphasized the accomplishments of the Democratic-led committee to which he contributed, while Seda attempted to provide differences between his platform and that of Grisanti.
“I’m for tax ratables,” said Grisanti. “I find it ironic that my opponent Mr. Seda is for clean commercial ratables, but he’s opposed to Jackson Commons.”
Jackson Commons is a 2.9-million-square-foot commercial development proposed by Mitch Leigh. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may vote on preliminary approval for the project this month. Leigh is requesting two variances, which is why the zoning board, and not the Planning Board, is hearing the application. Grisanti is a member of the Planning Board.
“My opponent was against the [Jackson] Commons, then for the Commons,” Seda said in response to a reporter’s question.
Grisanti recently announced that he supports Jackson Commons, despite a suggestion from the township attorney against making a publicly stated position of support prior to a decision by the zoning board.
“We established an Economic Development Commission (EDC)” to bring in commercial ratables,” said Grisanti. “We’ve been very aggressive in that regard.”
Seda pounced on the mention of the EDC, which he viewed as a wasteful expenditure.
“We’ve paid a lot for an economic commission, but after six years we’ve had no results,” he said. “We continue to pay and pay, but where are the results?”
Grisanti has been a member of the Township Committee for the past six years, but the EDC is less than 1 year old. It replaced the Jackson Industrial Commission through two ordinances passed by the committee on Dec. 22, 2003. The change was made at the suggestion of the township’s retail consultant, Barry Lefkowitz, who was contracted by the committee last year.
Seda said later in the debate that he viewed the hiring of a consultant to bring in retail development as an unnecessary expenditure.
Grisanti maintained that Jackson had to bring in commercial development instead of waiting for it to come to the township. He said Lefkowitz was actively courting potential retailers.
“My opponent has no clue what needs to be done to bring in economic development,” said Grisanti. “My opponent has never attended a meeting” of the EDC, but is making a judgment of its value to the township. “That’s irresponsible.”
Seda said during a recent interview with the Tri-Town News that he had never attended a meeting of the EDC and did not know that Leigh had received counsel from Lefkowitz and the Township Committee before submitting his proposal for Jackson Commons.
When a reporter asked what a government official should be, Grisanti replied, “A leader. No one wants to make the hard decisions.”
Seda countered that Grisanti had not made the hard decision in voting to carry the Planning Board’s hearing of Grawtown Estates, a 408-home development, to a date after the election.
In response, Grisanti said the applicant suggested moving the application date to after the election.
Ray Shea, who is the attorney and one of the applicants for Grawtown Estates, requested a postponement of the application at the board’s Sept. 7 meeting. The first available date offered Shea to present the application was Nov. 1, the day before the election. However, Grisanti said he preferred that the board hear the application after the election when, he said, he would be better prepared to focus his complete attention on it. After a discussion of the matter, members voted eight to one to carry the application to Nov. 15. James Casella was the only board member to dissent.
A reporter for the Tri-Town News asked the candidates the next question at the Oct. 13 debate. Since the Jackson PBA had taken a vote of no confidence in Public Safety Director Samuel DePasquale earlier this year, the candidates were asked whether the time had come for a return to a police chief, which former PBA President Joseph Oleksy said his union wanted when he addressed the Township Committee this past spring.
“Good government is always looking for the best way to run,” Grisanti said. “Very often management will have differences with the [rank and file]. Right now I think the public safety director [position] is working [well enough]. Yes, I think there are some issues, [but now that we’ve had an arbitration decision on the contract], maybe they will go away. To go [back] to a police chief is not a good way to go.”
A public safety director serves at the Township Committee’s pleasure. A police chief cannot be removed from his position as easily if the members of the governing body choose to take that course of action.
Seda said he favored a re-examination of the police department.
“Evidently, the status quo is not working,” he said.
The Tri-Town News asked both candidates if either one would vote to enact an increase in the municipal open space tax from 1.5 cents to 3 cents per $100 of assessed valuation. Voters will be asked to approve or defeat a nonbinding ballot referendum question on the proposed increase. If the committee eventually enacts the increase, the owner of a home assessed at $150,000 would pay $45 per year to the town’s open space fund instead of $23.
Seda said the increase made no sense
in light of the committee’s decision earlier this year to sell a parcel of land across from the municipal building. The Democrats on the committee approved the sale, which they said would bring much needed retail business to the area. However, Seda had opposed the sale since he said it could be used for the same purpose as the $1.2 million earned by the land auction.
“I would support [the increase] only if our budget is lean [enough],” said Seda.
Grisanti disagreed.
“When I go into the voting booth in November, I will be voting to increase the open space tax to 3 cents,” he said. “It expands open space, both active and passive.”
Grisanti defended the committee’s sale of the land near the municipal building by asserting that money realized from the sale would fund other projects that would more immediately benefit the township.
“To sell land for $1.2 million is not fiscally responsible,” said Seda in rebuttal. “My opponent doesn’t see that.”
Seda accused the Township Committee’s Democratic majority of approving the land sale to pay off bonds the township had issued.
Grisanti responded by saying that excluding open space land acquisition bonding, Democrats had only increased bonding by $5 million.
At committee meetings last year, former Republican mayor Vicki Rickabaugh accused the Democratic majority of creating debt through increased bonding.
Democrats responded by charging that her administration had bonded more money than had theirs.
“My opponent would like you to think you don’t know how bonding works,” said Seda. “Max out your credit card; [it will produce the same result].”
During the debate wrap-up, Seda spoke first. He said that on Nov. 2 voters will have a clear choice.
“Do we want the status quo?” he asked the audience. “Do we continue to bond this town? My opponent has done everything in his power to bring in very nice people [who are friends of his]. [Instead, let’s] bring the people into government. It’s up to you.”
When it was his turn, Grisanti said he was glad Seda had brought up the Planning Board’s decision to change the date on which the members agreed to hear the Grawtown Estates application. He said it was applicant’s lack of preparedness that was the basis for the change in hearing date to Nov. 1, the day before the election. He did not discuss Seda’s previous charge that Grisanti had requested a date after the election to hear the application.
“That’s (an example of) the misrepresentations I’ve had to face in this campaign,” said Grisanti.