Hopewell:
No paid police
Taken from the Bridgeton News ... for more information from
the Bridgeton News ...
www.nj.com/news/bridgeton/
Thursday, July 24, 2008
By JASON LADAY
jladay@sjnewsco.com
HOPEWELL TWP. - The township committee on
Wednesday sent what they hope to be a strong
message to Trenton, by joining with six other
Cumberland County communities in condemning the
state's efforts to force municipalities with
part time or no local police forces to pay for
their state police coverage.
They are the latest municipal governing body in
the state to register their objections with the
Council on Local Mandates, calling the new
requirement an unconstitutional "unfunded
mandate."
This year, an item requiring rural
municipalities to help pay for the cost of state
police patrols made it through the state budget
process. The requirement would force 92
municipalities to pay for their share of the $12
million demanded by the state. The total cost of
the service is $80 million.
"I
strongly oppose what the state is doing with the
state police coverage in the rural
municipalities," said Hopewell Committeeman Paul
Ritter III. "We hope this sends a strong message
to Trenton."
The resolution mirrors those passed by governing
bodies in Deerfield and Upper Deerfield
townships. In fact, the version unanimously
approved by the committee on Wednesday had been
approved by Deerfield last week.
The
official grievance states the new requirement
"does not authorize a new revenue source other
than property tax, making it appear that this
provision in the State Appropriations Act is an
unfunded mandate."
The
township committee then unanimously voted to
support an alternative solution - a bill
sponsored by Sen. Jeff Van Drew, D-1, that would
add a $40 surcharge to moving violations to help
offset the cost of state police coverage.
The
bill would also provide grants to non-rural
towns and cities to pay for municipal costs such
as state-mandated courtroom upgrades.
"The surcharge may not pay for all of the money
we'll be required to pay, but at least it'll
offset the cost by paying for part of it," said
Hopewell Committeeman Greg Facemyer. "And at
least it's not coming from property taxes."
As
it stands, rural municipalities will be required
to begin paying for the state police coverage
starting January.
Other municipalities to file complaints with the
Council on Local Mandates include Estell Manor
City, Buena Vista, both in Atlantic County;
Shiloh Borough and Lawrence, Commercial,
Fairfield, Deerfield and Upper Deerfield
townships, all in Cumberland County;
Southhampton and Shamong, in Burlington County;
and Rocky Hill, Somerset County.
TOWNSHIP KEEPS
ITS SEXUAL PREDATORS LAW ON THE BOOKS DESPITE
COURT RULING
The
township committee on Wednesday also decided to
keep its sexual offender ordinance - prohibiting
sexual offenders required to register under
Megan's Law from residing within 2,500 feet of a
township school, park, playground or daycare
center - on the books despite a recent state
appeals court ruling voiding the local law.
The
ruling, made earlier this month by a three-judge
panel, ruled that local laws were trumped by the
state's Megan's Law, a measure they said was
intended to be a "comprehensive framework" for
controlling and supervising the lives of sexual
offenders.
The
decision came after three sex offenders
challenged laws in Cherry Hill and Galloway
Township nearly identical to the one in place in
Hopewell Township. More than 100 municipalities
in New Jersey have similar laws.
"We're going to keep the law with the
understanding that it's unenforceable," said
township solicitor T. Henry Ritter. "Due to the
recent ruling it cannot be enforced, but there
may be an appeal later or some other change in
the state law, so we'll keep it on for now."
The
court left the issue open for the Legislature to
amend Megan's Law, if it so desired.
Passed in 2005, Hopewell's sexual offender law
hands out fines of up to $1,500 and prison terms
of up to 90 days to those registered under
Megan's Law living within 2,500 of where minors
regularly gather. Offenders who feel they should
be allowed to reside in such an area were, under
the law, able to apply to the committee for a
waiver.