NEWARK, N.J. — Nearly half a billion dollars. Thirty years of payments. One elementary school serving 667 students.
And a state audit released less than two weeks ago raising serious questions about how Newark Public Schools spends taxpayer money.
Nevertheless, New Jersey’s Local Finance Board voted 4-2 Wednesday to approve Newark’s controversial $498.4 million lease for the proposed Riverfront Elementary School, Save Jerseyans. The arrangement carries a price tag equivalent to approximately $747,000 per student over three decades. Annual lease payments begin around $11.3 million and increase 2.25% annually. The district would have the option to purchase the building for $1,000… after 30 years.
Remember: this is YOUR money.
Assembly Republicans including Dawn Fantasia, Paul Kanitra, Brian Bergen know it. They appeared before the board to oppose the agreement, citing its extraordinary cost and Newark’s questionable financial management.
Kanitra compared the lease’s price tag with less expensive school construction projects elsewhere in New Jersey, calling it among the most outrageous uses of taxpayer money he had encountered as a legislator.
Fantasia also questioned the developer’s political connections. Developer Scott Fields reportedly contributed to Newark Mayor Ras Baraka’s unsuccessful gubernatorial campaign. Baraka has denied involvement in arranging the deal.
Senator Declan O’Scanlon (R-Monmouth) separately urged the board to reject or postpone the agreement pending additional financial scrutiny.
The objections followed an eye-popping October 1st state audit that found:
- $6.65 million in excess state aid resulting from overstated student enrollment.
- $18.7 million in potential health insurance savings over two years.
- $566,000 spent on an employee fitness center, including construction expenditures lacking required approvals.
- $2.5 million paid toward an unfinished museum project that auditors said circumvented competitive bidding requirements.
- $711,943 in senior trips without documented educational components.
- 209 employees with missing or outdated criminal background clearances at the time reviewed.
Auditors also referred unspecified matters to the state Division of Criminal Justice, although the report did not accuse any particular individual of criminal wrongdoing.
Newark officials have disputed aspects of the audit and defended the proposed school as necessary to address overcrowding in the city’s East Ward. Their credibility, of course, is worth something less than dog shit in light of what was uncovered… black-and-white evidence of institutional corruption of the highest order. Assemblywoman Vicky Flynn has appropriately called for a state monitor to oversee Newark’s finances in light of the audit’s findings.
Still, the Local Finance Board approved the lease.
Voting yes were Dominick “Nick” DiRocco, Robert Jackson, Ryan Cooper, and Idida Rodriguez. Chairman Michael Rogers and William Close voted no.
DiRocco is notably a Republican Monmouth County commissioner, putting him on the opposite side of the vote from Republican legislators demanding greater fiscal scrutiny… including GOP legislators representing his own county.
Even Jackson, who supported the agreement, acknowledged that the school could potentially be delivered at a lower cost.
The vote illustrates a familiar and maddening feature of New Jersey Republican politics: a small yet intrepid GOP lawmakers can spend all day sounding the alarm about government waste, questionable spending, and Trenton’s fiscal priorities, only to discover a fellow Republican helping approve the very deal they’re fighting and undermining a winning Republican argument in the process.
Republican legislators showed up to challenge Newark’s nearly half-billion-dollar school lease. A Republican county commissioner voted yes and made the protest moot.
You’ve heard me talk about this problem before, Save Jerseyans. It’s the sort of contradiction that raises an uncomfortable question for a minority party that routinely campaigns on fiscal responsibility with little success to show for it: What good are those promises if Republicans can’t agree on what they mean when it’s time to cast a vote?
Or more to the point: at a time when GOP voter midterm enthusiasm is dangerously low, shouldn’t Republicans be working overtime to assure their base that YES, showing up for us is actually worth it? Because we WILL fight for you? And make a difference in your lives?
Forging an effective statewide Republican movement starts with courage. We’re starting to see some in the legislature, but we need much more before winning in 2027 (or 2029) is reasonably within reach.
