Wards don't make sense for Edison
On Nov. 6, Edison residents face a critical referendum on the ballot with longterm consequences for our community. Voters are asked to choose 1) whether to enact a charter change to divide Edison into five wards or political divisions; and 2) to increase the number of council members from seven to nine, with the goal of having five ward representatives and four atlarge representatives on the council.

If the questions pass, five ward commissioners would be tasked with creating the boundaries for these new wards. And depending on how long the process takes to create these boundaries, a special election would be conducted in 2008 or 2009. All seven of the incumbent council members would have to choose whether they would run for one of the four at-large council seats or one of the newly created ward council seats, regardless of how many of their four years they have served.

The ward supporters tout stronger representation that is localized and an opportunity for citizens to successfully run for public office in a more manageably sized district. Opponents speak of how Edison would be divided unnecessarily and government costs would rise because of the inherent competition of legislative bodies trying to take care of their own districts. Having lived in Edison for over 37 years and having observed Edison politics firsthand, I hope to offer my thoughts on this important topic.

First and foremost, I oppose the ward for Edison because it will lead to greater costs and higher property taxes. In the current state budget, so-called "Christmas tree" items totaled more than $360 million. At the national level, Congress put forward over $65 billion in earmarks. The phenomenon goes like this: if one ward receives a community center for $15 million, why would every other ward not want a community center for the same amount in return for support for the overall budget? And so council members can claim that they "fought for their fair share" of resources. Or a $500,000 park improvement would lead to an additional $2 million. The greatest accountability comes when each of the elected officials needs to make decisions for the entire community.

The transition costs alone of implementing a ward system, including professional services to support ward commissioners' analyses (attorneys, demographic and census experts, the cost of running two special elections, publication and notices, the salary and support staff to support two additional council members) would easily run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Not to mention the enormous amount of time and effort required from elected officials from 2008 to 2011 to fully implement the ward system. This is not a simple charter change; it requires resources and overhead to implement this ward over a period of time until new elections and staggered terms are reconfigured. This energy could be devoted to good government.

Also, one of the main reasons why New Jersey has the highest property taxes in the nation is because we have over 1,200 local governments (566 municipalities, over 610 school districts and special districts) and numerous elected officials. While home rule has its advantages in building community, we need to promote shared services and consolidation. Wards work in exactly the opposite direction. We need fewer politicians and more unity, not more politicians and less unity as the ward is advocating.

Second, the ward system would divide our community. Edison, unlike Newark, Jersey City and Woodbridge, does not have distinct neighborhoods that are obvious by geographic areas. Sure, we have the Clara Barton, Bonhamtown, Nixon, Menlo Park, Oak Hill, Oak Tree and other sections of Edison, but none of them cleanly fit into a contiguous district of five equal areas by population. The diversity we celebrate is spread throughout our town. In other words, wards would artificially divide our community into political districts that don't fit the needs of our community or distinct interests. Wards would make sense if there was a distinct group of people or neighborhood that had its unique character and they sought a voice for themselves that differed from other sections of Edison. You find that in Newark, but not Edison.

That is why among the 25 largest suburban municipalities in the state, only five have wards. Wards are largely an urban phenomenon that gained traction in the late 1800s when new immigrant groups were underrepresented. And the reality is that the council is currently represented by members from all sections of our town. Better representation sounds good in textbooks, but the political reality is that it would lead to more fragmentation. Better representation comes from better leaders, not more politicians and political divisions.

A better way would be to enhance our existing neighborhood liaison program, established both in a nonpartisan fashion through the government and through the committee system - 78 districts for Edison - that is established with both the Democratic and Republican parties. If we revitalize these systems, then we have true neighborhood representation. And council members would be responsible for prioritizing the needs throughout the town in a cost-efficient manner.

Let's keep Edison together and keep our taxes steady and vote "wards no" on Nov. 6.

Loretta Lord

Edison