brookfieldcitizens

brookfield citizens unite
 
HomeHome  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  MemberlistMemberlist  UsergroupsUsergroups  Log in  

Share | 
 

 WHAT NOW?

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
jrickansrud



Posts : 8
Join date : 2007-08-22

PostSubject: WHAT NOW?   Sat Aug 25, 2007 8:10 am

Even if NJ Mentor does not move in, the property is still owned by a company that leases to businesses like NJ Mentor. What can we do?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
JayHeine
Guest



PostSubject: Good Question...   Sat Aug 25, 2007 8:48 am

I've been pondering that question all day too. I have no idea what type of or what length lease Mentor signed with this company. Assuming the deal has been signed with the owner of the house, it's not just a simple matter of "we're not moving in" for Mentor. Mentor will still owe the owner a significant chunck of money and I don't think (considering they are a for-profit organization/business) that they'll walk away that easily, we'll see. In addition to that, your question still stands, what will be next for the house. Of course the optimal situation would be the owner sells, writes off the loss, and we get a new owner who also lives at the residence. Preferrably a family with 2.5 kids and a dog, and not a drug rehab center........
Back to top Go down
penngrad



Posts : 9
Join date : 2007-08-23

PostSubject: Not Over By a Long Shot   Sat Aug 25, 2007 9:30 am

Assemblyman Greenwald is not the Commisioner of the Department of Children and Families (DCF). He does not have the authority to prevent NJ Mentor from operating at these properties. He can only strongly recommend that the home not be placed here. Given that we proposed to include these children on the first manned mission to Mars, it's likely (but not certain) DCF Commisioner will reach the conclusion that Cherry Hill may not be the best environment.

However, I believe word of what happened last night will spread through the region. Over 100 comments have been posted to the Courier-Post. The article also ran in Delaware News Journal with the title "N.J. Town's Residents Boo Group Homes for Children". The lack of civility displayed last night may become a bigger story than the group home issue itself. Enough outrageous comments were made to neutralize any public support outside of our immediate communities. We wrote a sensational story for Lisa Grzyboski and it is now on the internet for all to access.

These group homes are required as part of the resolution of a law suit between the State of New Jersey and Children's Rights Inc. (http://www.childrensrights.org), a New York child advocacy group. The need for specialty beds is discussed in section 4a of the document titled "Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families". The excerpt provided below does not agree with NJ Mentor's statements last night.

Public opinion is against us now. The politicians in Trenton may be of a mind to shove this down our throats.

Excerpt from pages 52 & 53 of the Period I Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine:
Quote :
A recent examination by DCBHS of the profiles of children/youth placed in-state and out-of-state for longer than six months found that low IQ and sexual aggression were significant factors in placing children/youth out-of-state.
The State is attempting to address the need for more in-state treatment services by creating 60 new specialty beds for children/youth who have some of the most common challenges of children placed out-of-state in the last six months – fire setting, low IQ (55-75), assaultive behavior, and sexual aggression.
A Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued by DCBHS seeking in-state program bids for specialty services for boys and girls age 8-12 and 15-18 and for girls age 12-18 with the behaviors previously described and those with a history of running away from placement.
The RFP seeks programs that will adhere to a “no reject/no eject” policy so that children/youth who meet a specific program’s criteria for treatment will be accepted in the program, and the program will not terminate the child/youth from the program before his/her treatment is complete.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
ccross



Posts : 12
Join date : 2007-08-22

PostSubject: What Now?   Mon Aug 27, 2007 12:49 am

I'm sure everyone saw today's (Sunday) Courier Post article. The question is what is Brookfield's plan if the plan is to go forward with the home?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
sc



Posts : 37
Join date : 2007-08-22

PostSubject: Courier post, sunday August 26.   Mon Aug 27, 2007 5:19 am

Back to top Go down
View user profile
penngrad



Posts : 9
Join date : 2007-08-23

PostSubject: Re: WHAT NOW?   Mon Aug 27, 2007 11:11 am

We have to let Greenwald understand that we are not the "south park" people portrayed by the courier. Please note what I had written earlier. NJ Mentor has NOT been up front with us. They REFUSE to show us the contract which includes the clientel that will be moving into that house.

As per DCBHS contract, these 8-12 year olds will have at least one of) the following issues:
1. fire starting
2. abuse and cruelty to animals
3. issues of the sexual nature

CONDUCT DISORDER...these are hard core issues that are NOT going be be resolved by playing with our "good" children.

Mentor has not mentioned the above...we NEED a copy of the contract to put Mentor on the spot. They can say "...kids that have not been CONVICTED of sex crimes..." but it is DOCUMENTED in the program literature that these are the types of kids moving in. We MUST get Greenwald to get us a copy of the contract to prove MENTOR is lying.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
emadare



Posts : 12
Join date : 2007-08-23

PostSubject: Re: WHAT NOW?   Thu Aug 30, 2007 7:33 am

I emailed the following to the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs (askconsumeraffairs@lps.state.nj.us):

I am concerned that Scioto Properties LLC may have committed fraud in utilizing a fictitious name to purchase the property at 1107 West Valleybrook, Cherry Hill , NJ 08034.

It is my opinion the business name "SP-V Green Properties LLC" shown on the deed dated June 29, 2007 puts forth a false representation of the owner's true identity. I further believe this name was utilized in lieu of "Scioto Properties LLC" in a deliberate attempt to thwart public knowledge of the intended use of this property. This misrepresentation impeded the public's ability to learn of NJ Mentor's plan to establish a place of business on this property. Due to this deception, the community's ability to engage in public discourse, voice opinions, and seek information was obstructed.

During a public meeting in Cherry Hill , NJ on August 23, 2007, NJ Mentor representatives described the business association with Scioto Properties. NJ Mentor identified the desired property to Scioto . Scioto subsequently purchased this property and entered into a lease agreement with NJ Mentor. Scioto Properties, not SP-V Green Properties, was identified as NJ Mentor's business partner. NJ Mentor's sole intention is to establish and operate a group home.

As a result of these actions, I believe it may be argued that Scioto violated the community's First Amendment freedom of expression. I do not question the legal right to establish a group home at this location. At issue is whether a for-profit company with indirect business dealings with the State of New Jersey concealed its identity in a manner that violated the rights of the citizens of New Jersey .
Back to top Go down
View user profile
emadare



Posts : 12
Join date : 2007-08-23

PostSubject: Re: WHAT NOW?   Thu Aug 30, 2007 7:42 am

I continue to seek the contract between NJ Mentor (National Mentor Healthcare Inc, National Mentor Holdings LLC, NMH Holdings, REM New Jersey, etc) and the State of New Jersey.

I placed an OPRA request with the New Jersey Department of Human Services (DHS) on August 21. I was informed today (August 29) that the document is held by the Division of Developmental Disabilities. The request was transferred to the DDD Custodian and the OPRA time frame has been reset.

I contacted Assemblyman Greenwald's office on Monday (8/27/07) and was told the document could only be obtained via an OPRA request. Given the contract is likely less than 6 months old, I find it difficult to believe a State Assemblyman can not more quickly obtain a New Jersey State contract that directly impacts his constituency.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: WHAT NOW?   

Back to top Go down
 
WHAT NOW?
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
brookfieldcitizens :: Group Home Forum-
Jump to: