Garwood Council Candidates Talk Taxes, Redevelopment, Athletic Field Complex at Pointe Debate

Garwood's three council candidates for November's election faced off at a Thursday night debate at the Pointe, discussing taxes, shared services, redevelopment, the under-construction Athletic Field Complex and more. 

Councilman and incumbent Jim Mathieu (Conservative Republican) and Mike Martin (Regular Garwood GOP) will appear on the ballot, while Planning Board member Bruce Paterson –who is running as an Independent, though is a registered Democrat – has recently tossed his name in the hat as a write-in candidate. (The Garwood Democrats did not field a candidate in the primary.)

Moderator Bill Connolly of the Pointe began the evening by introducing the candidates before launching into a series of questions that each had two minutes to answer. 

First and foremost, Connolly asked how the candidates proposed to keep the borough's taxes under control. 

Mathieu answered first, saying that he did a deep analysis of the budget when he served as finance chair and has always kept his pledge not to vote for a tax increase. He proposed that the borough needs to do a better job of looking into shared services before he will ever vote for a tax increase, and suggested investigating privatizing trash (which he noted is already being studied) and perhaps sharing dispatching with the county or another town and the municipal court with another town.

Paterson said taxes and budgeting involves compromise and working with your fellow council members in a way he feels Mathieu has not done. "Just sitting there voting no doesn’t get us anywhere," said Paterson.

Martin backed Paterson, calling Mathieu's consistent no votes a gimmick. "If there is a need to vote for more taxes, we should have the foresight, courage and vision to vote for a tax increase as long as they are controlled and there is a way to offset taxes going forward through things like redevelopment," said Martin.

Connolly next asked about the Athletic Field Complex. Noting that the project is more than a year behind schedule, Connolly asked if the candidates thought it should be scaled back or if we should "grit our teeth and forge ahead."

Paterson and Martin agreed that the project was too far along to consider scaling back without incurring fees or legal issues. Paterson added that he had once proposed that residents volunteer to construct the building on the site as a heritage structure, similar to others in town. 

"Get over it," said Martin. "The field is going forward and we can’t do anything about it now. So let's have the field and it will be something we can show that enhances Garwood."  

Martin also proposed that the field could be a revenue-generator, as he has already heard that outside groups are interested in using it for a fee. 

Mathieu said he felt the project should have been scaled back and voted no to approving it, but that "the train has already left the station." He took aim at what he called some of the high-end upgrades to the project, like "high-grade siding and a brand new kitchen." He also said he was worried about where the costs would end. 

"This is a level 3, trending level 4 disaster," said Mathieu. "Your checkbook is open until this thing is done, and I don’t know where it ends, guys." 

Next, Connolly pointed out the services Garwood does share – the borough is part of the Westfield Regional Board of Health and Cranford serves as building official – and asked the candidates to identify any other areas for shared service they saw.

Martin again pointed to the Athletic Field Complex as something shareable and added that the borough should withhold the money we pay to the county until they explain where that money goes. He also mentioned that Scotch Plains and Fanwood are discussing merging police departments, and that Garwood could look at other towns to see what sharing worked for them. 

Mathieu pointed to a handout with Garwood police salaries, saying that police was the one thing he did not want to share. He also said it was wrong for Garwood to cut a police officer (there are currently 15 officers, when there were once 16) and spend money on things like the Athletic Field Complex. He added that the borough should investigate any other opportunity for sharing including trash pickup, the DPW, courts and dispatching. He also suggested hiring a public safety director in lieu of a chief, which he says would cost the borough less.

Paterson took aim at Mathieu, claiming Mathieu was once appointed to look into shared services but didn't follow through on his duties. He also rebutted Mathieu's argument about the severity of cutting a police officer, saying that the cut hasn't caused a shortage or even any overtime in the department. Paterson, who has long railed against the county, said he would put his feelings aside to at least look into share services with them as a councilman. 

Connolly also asked if the candidates thought the borough should undertake a property tax reevaluation. 

Mathieu said yes, noting that the borough's last reevaluation was in 1984 and calling it an unpopular choice, but the right one. 

"You folks here at the Pointe are subsidizing me," said Mathieu. "I like it, but it’s wrong."

Paterson said he once thought a reevaluation made common sense, but that after hearing from the borough tax assessor at a recent council meeting, he realized it was unnecessary.

Martin also answered no, saying only 20 percent of residents would have a significant change in assessment, and that that isn't worth the estimated $200,000 cost of reevaluating. 

Connolly then asked, if elected, what the candidates would do to encourage redevelopment of North and South avenues. 

Paterson noted that things are in motion with zoning changes in the master plan to encourage redevelopment and progress is being made on the Paperboard building. 

Martin said the borough needed to make itself more vital and attractive to developers, and suggested holding more borough events, perhaps a "Garwood Day."

Mathieu focused on what he wouldn't do in the name of redevelopment – use eminent domain – saying he believes private property owners' rights come first. He suggested a selective use of tax credits instead.

Connolly closed by asking the candidates whether government experience is important for a council candidate and if it is more important than business or other experience.

Martin said no, and that business experience was at least as important. Mathieu agreed, and even called political experience a detriment, noting his disapproval of career politicians. Paterson said at the local level, community experience is more important than business experience. He noted that he began his community experience by being someone who complains, but then moved to become someone who is involved.

"Politics is dirty," said Paterson. "Business experience and community service is the best experience to sit on council, but mostly it's about listening to your neighbors and fellow citizens and seeing exactly where they come from." 

Connolly then let each candidate ask one question addressed to both of their opponents.

Mathieu went first, asking Paterson what makes him a Democrat and Martin what makes him a Republican. Both rebutted Mathieu by saying philosophies and party affiliations don't matter much at the local level.

When it was Paterson's turn, he asked, "If you voted no to every single thing that came along and nothing was achieved in the outcome of that no vote, what makes you think another three years is worthwhile?" 

Martin said he would be ashamed of himself. 

Mathieu argued that he doesn't vote no just to be different, but rather to give residents another choice, saying his intent is to bring people over to his side. 

The conversation went off the rails from here, as Martin also tried to ask a question that took aim at Mathieu instead of a general question. At this point, the crowd came to Mathieu's defense, with several people calling out to say it was unfair that Martin and Paterson were making things personal.

Connolly then moved ahead, asking the candidates to give their closing statements. 

Paterson defended his poking at Mathieu, saying as the incumbent it's up to Mathieu to explain his actions. He used his closing statement to instruct residents on how to cast a write-in ballot by selecting the personal choice column and typing in his name.

Martin again focused on Mathieu, saying "I'm not going to apologize to anyone in this room for pointedly attacking Jim because I abhor what he’s done on council." He claimed that the mayor has filed a police report against him and referenced the lawsuit between Mathieu and Borough Administrator Tina Ariemma. 

For his closing statements, Mathieu apologized to the crowd for the turn the evening took and said the criticism he gets is only because he "poked the hornet's nest" in trying to create more transparency in Garwood government. He said he is only able to withstand "the slings and arrows" because of the support of his wife, new baby and family. He added that if voters wanted just another "yes" vote they should vote for his opponents.