Assemblyman reaches out to the Attorney General and New Jersey State Police for more police presence

(TRENTON) – Assemblyman Reed Gusciora (D-Mercer/Hunterdon) called on the Attorney General Jeffrey Chiesa to provide additional state police patrols to assist with the City’s police department in the wake of escalating crime statistics.

“City residents see headline after headline of senseless violent acts and we need assurances that there are adequate public safety levels,” Gusciora said.  “The State has a special obligation to the Capital City to protect not only the city residents, but the thousands of state workers who commute in and out everyday.  We have to be especially mindful of children and those innocently caught in the crosshairs of violence.”

The request comes on the heels of Trenton Councilwoman Kathy McBride’s press conference at theLaurel Placepark where the local playground became a site for a late night shooting.  The Assemblyman not only supports this call for help, but requested a similar call in 2012 for a working relationship between the New Jersey State Police (NJSP) and the City’s police department.

“I was told by the Attorney General’s office that there are discussions underway to devise a long-term plan to enhance the safety of the Capital City community,” continued Gusciora.  “Notwithstanding, that was in October, and the shootings continue.

“In this regard, the State needs to do more to ensure public safety for our residents,” Gusciora concluded.

http://www.politickernj.com/64817/gusciora-calls-additional-state-patrols-capital-city

TRENTON – An Assembly committee on Monday approved legislation sponsored by Assembly Democrats Reed Gusciora (D-Mercer/Hunterdon)  to authorize law enforcement agencies to inform public and independent institutions of higher education when a student is charged or convicted of certain criminal offenses.

“Higher education institutions have standards that students must adhere to. If a student has been charged or convicted of a serious crime, they have failed to meet those standards. If they pose a threat to students and staff, the proper authorities at the university deserve to know,” said Gusciora.

“Colleges and universities are places of learning. Students and staff members should not have to worry about individuals with criminal backgrounds who may prove disruptive or worse,” said Quijano. “The offenses covered under this bill are serious enough to warrant notification.”

The bill (A-3173) provides that at the time of a criminal charge or conviction of any student enrolled in a public or independent institution of higher education in the state, the law enforcement or prosecuting agency may provide written notice to the president of the institution of the student’s identity, the offense charged and the conviction, if the offense constitutes a crime and the offense:

• resulted in death or serious bodily injury or involved an attempt or conspiracy to cause death or serious bodily injury;
• involved the unlawful use or possession of a firearm or other weapon;
• involved the unlawful manufacture, distribution or possession with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance or controlled substance analog;
• was committed with a purpose to intimidate an individual or group of individuals because of race, color, religion, sexual orientation or ethnicity;
• is a crime or offense set forth in chapter 14 of Title 2C of the New Jersey Statutes; or
• is a crime of the first, second, or third degree.

The bill also clarifies that a law enforcement or prosecuting agency is not prohibited from providing the president of an institution with information identifying one or more students who are under investigation or have been taken into custody for commission of any act that would constitute an offense, if the information may be useful to the president in maintaining order, safety or discipline in the institution. The bill provides that any information provided to the president will be maintained by the institution and may be made available to such members of the staff and faculty of the institution as the president deems appropriate for maintaining order, safety, or discipline in the institution.

The measure was released by the Assembly Higher Education Committee; and it now goes to the desk of the Assembly Speaker for further consideration.

Read more: http://njtoday.net/2013/01/14/committee-advances-bill-to-allow-law-enforcement-to-notify-colleges-if-students-are-charged-with-crimes/#ixzz2JOsmN7Yg

Opinion: Accept Gov. Christie’s challenge to put gay marriage on N.J. ballot

By Reed Gusciora

I still believe that civil rights issues are not appropriate for the ballot. In advocating for my bill to grant same-sex couples the right to marry, I was steadfast on that point. I am reminded of James Madison’s warning: “It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of society against the injustice of the other part.” Indeed, imagine if Southern voters in the 1960s were permitted to vote on whether lunch counters or schools should be desegregated.

Nonetheless, gays and lesbians today are at a crossroads. In light of Gov. Chris Christie’s veto of my marriage equality bill last year, there are few options left for same-sex couples, who are relegated to second-class citizenship by the state’s denial of their right to be married. These are the same gay and lesbian couples who are in long-standing relationships; who pay taxes in the state like everyone else; who raise families and call this state their home. And as long as marriage is a legal status recognized by the state, it should be granted on an equitable basis.

Yet, while my Marriage Equality bill won approval in the state Senate by a vote of 24-16 and in the Assembly 42-33 last February, we have to live with the governor’s veto unless advocates can muster a two-thirds majority to override it.

Three more affirmative votes are needed in the Senate and 12 votes are needed in the Assembly. The task is harder to achieve when one recognizes that, out of the 66 affirmative votes in both houses on the issue, only two were cast by Republican members.

It raises the question as to whether it is realistic to think there will be any additional cross-party votes in a gubernatorial election year. The ensuing question, then, is “What’s next?”

Read More…http://www.nj.com/times-opinion/index.ssf/2013/01/opinion_accept_gov_christies_c.html

(TRENTON) – Legislation sponsored by Assembly Democrats Troy Singleton, John J. Burzichelli and Reed Gusciora to prevent the misuse of disability identification cards and placards received final legislative approval Thursday and now heads to the governor’s desk.

“Instances of abuse involving individuals with disability parking tags were first brought to my attention by a concerned constituent with a severe disability who had firsthand experience with the problem,” said Singleton (D-Burlington).  “After listening to her concerns and talking to my colleagues, we came up with what we think is a simple, yet effective, way to address the problem.”

Singleton said he was especially proud of the bill because it was inspired by a “citizen-legislator” who shared the idea through the “There Should Be A Law” section of his website, www.TroySingleton.com. “This bill was a direct result of the partnership between my office and our constituents, and really underscores how we have tried to open Trenton up to our neighbors in the 7th legislative district to allow them to be active participants in our democracy,” added Singleton.

Under current law, “handicapped” placards issued to individuals with a disability do not have an expiration date. This has led to situations in which individuals who received a tag while temporarily disabled continued to use the tag – and the privileges it confers – even after it is no longer needed.

Under the Singleton/Burzichelli/Gusciora bill (A-2947), the following changes would be made concerning the issuance and renewal of temporary and permanent identification cards and placards for individuals with disabilities:

• The term “handicapped” would be replaced with “person with a disability” in keeping with current state law that requires offensive or outmoded terminology be replaced with more acceptable, current language;
• All disability windshield placards would be issued with a prominently printed and displayed expiration date;
• Permanent person with a disability identification cards and placards would be required to be renewed every three years; and
• The certification of a medical professional would be required for the issuance and/or renewal of a person with a disability identification card or placard.

“We’ve all walked into a restaurant or grocery store at one time or another and seen high-performance sports cars parked in parking spots reserved for people with disabilities, or watched on a rainy day as an individual parked in a disabled parking spot leapt nimbly from their vehicle and sprinted to their destination,” said Burzichelli (D-Gloucester).  “Making these common-sense changes to the law will ensure that we see less of these types of scenarios in the future.”

“Providing tags to access parking dedicated for people with disabilities is a small way to make daily activities a little less challenging for individuals with disabilities and their families,” said Gusciora (D-Mercer). “So when these tags are abused or misused, it can cause a disruption that cascades throughout the person’s whole day.  Adding prominent, visible expiration dates to these tags will help eliminate some of the abuse.”

Several states, including Florida, California, Pennsylvania, Oregon and Wisconsin have some or all of these restrictions already in place.

The bill was approved 39-0 by the Senate on Thursday and 79-0 by the full Assembly in June.

Assembly bill 2586, which allows for an exemption for private colleges and universities from local land-use regulations, has been fast-tracked through the legislative process. Proponents of the measure stress that they only seek “parity” with other public colleges that were granted such exemptions by a state Supreme Court decision, which recognized the “vital public mission served by those [public] institutions in educating the citizens of the State.” No such bill has been introduced, however, to give parity for the local property taxpayer.

In fact, by granting private universities and colleges the green light to build anything they desire within the confines of a given municipality without local land-use scrutiny would increase local taxes over the long haul. For instance, if a private college were to build a new dorm or even a commercial venture along main street without needing to meet local zoning restrictions, local taxpayers would be stuck with paying for the increased demand for parking, traffic and sewage improvements, police protection, fire protection and the like. After all, educational institutions already enjoy tax-exempt status for their properties in a given locality. This would certainly exacerbate things for property taxpayers, even in the short term.

Moreover, one can make the rational argument that by granting land-use exemptions for public institutions, there is at least the check by state government, which ultimately approves decisions these public institutions make. This is not the case for private universities or colleges in the state, which see little, if any, oversight from the state.

Imagine if Princeton University, with its $17 billion endowment, decided to buy up land in the downtown community or even residential areas of Princeton. Arguably, under A2586, it could build whatever it liked without any intervention from local planning or zoning boards. Indeed, Princeton University’s recent efforts to build an “arts village”; its efforts to move the nearby NJ Transit rail station farther into its university property; and the Institute for Advanced Studies’ efforts to build faculty housing on lands where the Revolutionary Battle of Princeton was fought — at least these proposals had some public input through the local land-use process. No local input would be required if A2586 were to become law.

Similar scenarios could be envisioned in communities that host Seton Hall, with its $230 million endowment; Drew University, with its $195 million endowment; Monmouth University, with its $62 million endowment; Rider University, with its $54 million endowment, and so forth.

While public universities primarily educate New Jersey students, no such aim is fostered by private universities and colleges, who are more likely to house out-of-state students. Indeed, for instance, 84 percent of Princeton University students are from out of state; 41 percent of Drew University students are from out of state; and one-quarter of Seton Hall students are from out of state.

In addition, the lack of public oversight would unnecessarily upset the partnerships developed between private colleges and universities and their host communities. Instead, it would be more likely that close relationships would be forged between private institutions and commercial developers eager to build. Local taxpayers, who would now solely bear the burden of increased development without compensation, would be witness to the erosion of harmony that now exists in many town-gown communities.

Proponents, however, argue that there is a safeguard in the law. They argue that a private university’s exemption from local land-use laws is not unlimited and must be “exercised in a reasonable fashion as to not arbitrarily override legitimate local interests.” “What does that mean?” you may ask. It means that litigation would likely result in order to decide whether a given project does “override legitimate local interests,” thereby giving a boon to land-use attorneys. Local taxpayers would be left to foot the bill — this time, legal bills.

Finally, with New Jersey at an inexcusable ranking for its high property taxes, local zoning boards and municipal regulations are the checks that keep costs a bearable burden. Without this check on public colleges and universities, these institutions can swallow up the municipalities and local property taxpayers will be left with crumbs at the next groundbreaking.

We’re left with the question: Where is the parity in all of this for local property taxpayers?

Reed Gusciora (D-Trenton) represents the 15th District in the New Jersey General Assembly.

http://www.nj.com/times-opinion/index.ssf/2012/10/opinion_reject_bill_exempting.html

The Council of State Governments is holding their 2nd meeting for the Economic Working Group

  (TRENTON) – Deputy Majority Leader Reed Gusciora (D-Trenton) is heading toLexington,Kentucky, for the second leg of an economic summit with other legislators from around the country.  The working group was chosen by the Council of State Governments (CSG) to focus on advancing model legislation to improve economic conditions in each member’s state.   Gusciora is one of a handful of legislators and state economic development officials invited to the forum.

The first meeting was hosted by ESRI, a geographic information systems software firm, inRedlands,California, where participants began the process of sharing ideas on state economic incentive programs.  Now, they will regroup in their second meeting inLexington,Kentucky, where legislators will further develop strategies on economic development issues.

“This is a unique opportunity to share economic ideas with other legislators and economic development officials from around the country,” Gusciora said.  “It is also intended to remain as a working group so that our ideas can be further flushed out over time.”

The working group was selected by CSG with the intention of combating interstate competition that has resulted from the various state offered financial and incentive programs.  Each working group meeting is arranged in a way to openly discuss the cause and effects of financial instability within states, ultimately leading to model legislation for member states to develop further on their own.

“It is not intended to find ‘one size fits all’ solutions, but by sharing ideas we hope to be able to motivate members to try something new to help spur economic development within our states,” said Gusciora.  “By no means do we expect to find a ‘magic bullet,’ however, we all want to go home motivated to foster economic growth.”

The two day conference will conclude on Friday, September 28^th.   Gusciora is paying for the travel costs associated with the trip

Gusciora Applauds Opening of Patient Registry to Carry Out Medical Marijuana Law

(TRENTON) – Assemblyman Reed Gusciora (D-Mercer/Hunterdon) on Wednesday applauded the New Jersey Department of Health for taking a crucial step in the long-awaited implementation of the state’s medical marijuana law, of which Gusciora was a prime sponsor.

“The opening of a patient registry is a crucial and welcome step. For patients that have been kept in the dark for quite some time, this represents the light at the end of the tunnel.

“I’m encouraged that the program is moving along and hopefully this will be a good sign of things to come as we await the opening of our dispensaries,” said Gusciora. 

TRENTON — A New Jersey lawmaker is calling for legislative hearings on why it’s taking so long for the state’s medical marijuana program to get running.

Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, a Democrat from Trenton, called for hearings last week. Read more here

(TRENTON) – Assemblyman Reed Gusciora (D-Mercer/Hunterdon) called for legislative hearings regarding the State’s failure to successfully start the long anticipated New Jersey’s medical marijuana program, which was scheduled to open its dispensaries on July 1st, 2011.

“New Jersey was to open six medical marijuana dispensaries this time last year. It is a cruel joke at the expense of cancer patients, AIDS patients, those suffering from Multiple Sclerosis and other muscular disorders, who hoped to have this program already implemented,” said Gusciora, the prime sponsor of the legislation that had been signed in Governor Corzine’s last days in office.

The program was originally delayed from its start date in June of 2010 to October 2010, by request of the Administration, in order to compile registries, set up distribution centers, and work out the operations of the dispensaries. Since that 90 day extension, the Administration stated the program would be up and running by July 1st, 2011.

“I think it’s reasonable for the Administration to provide an explanation as to why there is such a delay,” continued Gusciora. “We have heard little about the patient registries or identifying host communities for the six dispensaries. And if the Governor is truly committed in helping to alleviate the suffering of hundreds of terminally ill citizens in this state, I would ask that he focus his efforts to begin implementation of the medicinal marijuana program at the earliest start up date possible.”

“This is a cause certainly worthy of boardwalk brawl,” concluded Gusciora. “Until such time however, legislative oversight of this program is very much needed to make sure the Administration isn’t dozing off at the switch.”

Legislation sponsored by Assemblyman Reed Gusciora (D-Mercer/Hunterdon) to provide stricter protections for animals in danger of abuse was approved by the Assembly Agriculture Committee on Thursday.

“As a humane society, we should not tolerate abuses against animals any more than we would against a person,” said Gusciora.  “We’ve seen a number of high profile animal abuse cases in recent years, a good number of which arise from domestic disputes, lending even more support for this legislation.  Whether it’s indirect abuse, like starvation, direct abuse such as physical violence or the anger of a disgruntled spouse or partner, this bill will help protect innocent animals.”

The bill (A-347) would authorize the courts to issue an animal protection order against any person found guilty of abusing an animal or otherwise violating the state animal cruelty laws. The animal protection order would require the person to refrain from interacting with an animal permanently or for a period of time specified by the court.

The animal protection order may apply to a specific animal with which the individual has contact, or any other animal, as determined to be appropriate by the court.

Any person who knowingly violates a condition of an animal protection order issued pursuant to this section, and, as a result, causes injury to the animal that is the subject of the animal protection order, shall be guilty of a disorderly persons offense.

The measure now awaits consideration by the full Assembly.