♪♪ >> From NJ PBS Studios, this is "NJ Spotlight News" with Brianna Vannozzi.

>> Hello, and thanks for joining us tonight.

I'm Joanna Gaggis.

Brianna Vannozzi is off.

Coming up in the broadcast, today is Earth Day, so how is the state handling its environmental challenges?

We'll talk with one advocate.

Plus, officials say the state's economy is strong and stable, but residents may disagree, according to the latest polls.

And later, we talk with one rabbi about the realities of anti-Semitism here in New Jersey.

But first, nearly 70,000 people have dropped insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act as premiums have gone up.

The Sherrill administration says Washington's to blame.

Get Covered New Jersey is the state's official health insurance exchange under the Affordable Care Act, and state officials announced on Tuesday that enrollment is down nearly 14 percent since the open enrollment ended in late January.

It fell from a little more than 500,000 enrolled to 440,000.

Now state officials blame the drop on the expiration of federal tax credits, saying the Trump administration and Congress failed to extend the subsidies, which ended up driving up costs for working and middle class residents.

Now of those who've kept their insurance, many downgraded from silver plans to bronze, which carry lower monthly premiums but have much higher out-of-pocket costs.

That means tens of thousands of New Jerseyans are at risk of skipping preventative care and may be forced to rely on costly emergency services, which end up driving up health care costs overall.

We might be the garden state, but New Jersey's air?

It's not so good.

A American Lung Association ranks our state among the worst for smog and pollution.

It looked at two of the most dangerous air pollutants, fine particles and ozone, and 13 New Jersey counties earned an F for ozone smog.

The report, called State of Air, found that nearly half the children in the U.S.

are breathing unhealthy air, and in New Jersey, it's more than 700,000 kids.

But that burden?

It's not shared equally.

It disproportionately impacts communities of color, making them more vulnerable to chronic health issues like asthma, diabetes, and heart disease.

In fact, the ALA says that a person of color is more than twice as likely to live in a community with a failing grade level of pollution than a white person, and Hispanic individuals more than three times as likely.

Coming up on this Earth Day, are state policies making communities safer when it comes to climate change and flood prevention?

We'll take a look next.

Major funding for NJ Spotlight News is provided in part by NJM Insurance Group, serving the insurance needs of residents and businesses for more than 100 years.

It's Earth Day, which is a day that started more than 50 years ago in the U.S.

to support environmental protection.

It's since become a global movement.

Well, today in Trenton, environmental advocates used this Earth Day to push for the continuation of regulations called Real Rules that set stricter guidelines for building along New Jersey's coast.

Now some lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are pushing back on the rules saying they put the burden of resiliency on homeowners.

I'm joined now by someone who disagrees.

She's Anjali Ramos Busso from the Sierra Club who is at the statehouse for today's hearing.

Anjali so great to have you with us.

What was the messaging that came from environmental advocates today in support of the real rules.

Yeah.

Thank you Joanna for having me.

And as always our message has always been the same which is New Jersey doesn't necessarily have anything on the books to provide clear guidance and standards for developing housing businesses and just in general infrastructure along areas that are either at the coastline or suffer from flooding due to you know the coast.

So we've always advocated, we've always supported what the Department of Environmental Protection has done with this package of resiliency rules, resilient environments and landscapes.

That's what the real acronym stands for and it's really about protecting homeowners.

It's about protecting businesses and the rules don't necessarily apply if you are going to do minor fixes to your home.

It's really about when you hit 50% of changes or additions to your home or you have suffered from incredible extreme flooding that has jeopardized the integrity of your home and you are entirely rebuilding.

That's really when the rules kick in, but it's primarily for new development.

Yeah.

So with that redevelopment, just to be clear on what the rules say, they say that in New Jersey, any redevelopment has to be four feet above FEMA's flood projection levels.

Now FEMA's flood projection levels vary depending on where you live, right?

And so homes that have already been raised would now have to be raised four feet higher.

At one point it was five.

It was back down to four.

Let me ask you this.

Some folks who push back on this say homeowners really are the only ones bearing the burden.

We don't see these types of requirements on city government buildings.

We don't have resiliency for roads.

Let's just start with the idea, do you agree or disagree, that homeowners are bearing most of the burden here?

I have to entirely disagree because of that 50% threshold, right?

Like, it's only if you're about to rebuild your entire home because of loss of property, because of damage to your entire property, or you are entirely rebuilding it because it's higher than 50% if you're changing your property, right?

It's not that you are conducting maintenance on your property, that these rules would trigger you to have to build higher.

So it's really not about your mom and pop shop or any person that lives in the coastal area in the state.

It's really about how are we building into the future.

If you are building a new apartment complex, if you are building a new commercial building, those are the types of structures that are really going to see this coming into place.

And if you are building in the coast and you are this area is already experiencing flooding and you know that it's going to flood even more and even more frequent, shouldn't you build to the best of the standard and the best of your knowledge so that you actually protect your property, your home or your business from severe flooding in the future.

And when you talk about the future, it's not 20, 30, 50 years from now.

Of course, the rules do like run projections until 2100, but there, these projections are accounting next 10 years from now, 15 years from now, 20 years from now.

We're going to be alive.

Our structures are going to be in place.

So we really have to be smart about how we go on a proactive way in building coastal.

Let me ask you this, because you say that you have been in support all along of this move from the DEP to enact these rules.

There's also been pushback from folks who say this was passed as as mandate in the state without any legislative input.

And I'm just curious your thoughts about that process because certainly while this is a Democratic administration and this happened we should be clear under the Murphy administration and you're in support of it.

Does this raise concerns about the process.

Let's say if there were a Republican administration putting in other rules.

Do you have concerns that this was outside of the legislative process?

I don't have concerns because the DEP has very clear authority that has been established by both the federal government by through delegated authority as well as authority from the legislature through various pieces of legislation that were enacted many decades ago.

And so the DEP is not coming up with a new set of rules.

They're simply just adopting and essentially changing, modernizing their pre-existing rules that they are required to do so, right?

They have the authority and they are required to update flood masks to the best of their understanding and the best available science.

So that's exactly what the D. P. did.

Governor Murphy at the beginning, you know, I would say like four years ago or maybe even five years ago, he told the D. P. to go and get started with the stakeholder in the rulemaking process to create a package of rules that would look at holistic resiliency measures.

The D. P. did exactly that the stakeholder process was longer than four years environmental advocates were considers climate sciences were considers insurance the insurance industry to develop an industry to build their some municipalities local governments county governments they were all heard they were all part of the stakeholder in process and only after all of that input was considered the department came up with the rule proposal that was later on even amended to provide additional flexibility to municipalities and only then do we see this package of rules at the end of the Murphy administration become adopted.

And now we don't know if the Sherrill administration will carry them forward.

What was said at the hearing today in terms of making those requests?

So we really didn't hear much about what do we need Governor Sherrill to do.

What we heard is there is a fundamental lack of authority for the DEP to do this.

And therefore that's exactly, if you look at the resolution language, that's really what they go after.

So it's not even about input from Governor Sherrill.

It's just like they just essentially, with this resolution, they just want to eliminate the rules entirely.

The DEP feels very strongly about this, right?

They created these rules with their expertise and their knowledge and relying on incredible climate scientists from Rutgers University across the state.

So I think that, you know, the legislature has given the DEP this authority.

We have to, I've got to jump in there because unfortunately we're out of time.

But thank you.

I'm sorry to interrupt you just like that, but Anjali Ramos-Pousso, director of the Sierra Club, New Jersey Chapter.

Certainly not the last time we'll be talking about this.

Thank you.

Thank you, Joanna.

New Jersey started the year with one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation, but the latest jobs report is offering some hope.

While the state shed more than 10,000 jobs in February, the unemployment rate ticked down slightly to 5.1%.

At a legislative budget hearing last Thursday, the state's acting Labor Commissioner told lawmakers that New Jersey's economy remains "strong and stable."

But a new poll finds that a majority of residents here disagree, giving the state economy low marks.

It all matters for lawmakers as they go through this budget season.

Here to break it all down is our budget and finance writer John Reitmeyer as part of our Under the Dome series.

Hey, John, good to talk to you.

It's good to be with you today, Joanna.

So how have the job numbers shifted?

You talk about in your recent reporting the shift down to 5.1 percent.

What are the actual numbers behind that.

Yeah it's really a slight decline.

So when we look at it and we when you talk to economists they will tell you that there are going to be little ups and downs in the the monthly numbers and these numbers without getting too technical are subject to revision.

But what we like to look at is the broader trend.

And so I think what you heard the Labor Commissioner refer to is over the last year or so, the unemployment rate has remained pretty stable, like right around that 5% or a little over 5% range.

And so in some ways, that's a good thing, right?

Because it means that the state unemployment rate, the economy itself is not having these wild swings.

You think back to like the immediate aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, where things were all over the place.

So it's pretty stable.

That said, if you look back to 2024, the average rate was in the 4% range.

And just even today, going back to today's rate, we're higher in New Jersey than a lot of states, including our regional peers, and we're also higher than the national jobless average for unemployment.

And so that's sort of what we look at when we're trying to get an idea of what's going on here, specifically in New Jersey.

Yeah.

How far off are we from the national numbers?

It's about a full percentage point, which might not sound like a whole lot, but when you're talking about the big number of people who are employed, you know, 1% can be a lot of people.

And so we would take that pretty seriously.

You've sat through many of the budget hearings where in this early stage, lawmakers get to question many of the commissioners, right, of all the different departments in the state, and in particular Department of Labor, as we talked about.

They did point to our neighbors as having better jobs numbers than we have here in New Jersey.

What are they what are they pointing to and what are they kind of asking for.

Well I think what they're asking the labor commissioner is what's the plan in New Jersey to see that number get a little closer to maybe the federal rate that I mentioned or or what some of our regional peers are experiencing.

And you know in some cases it's sort of apples to oranges in some cases it's not.

So what maybe are the big industries in our neighboring states.

You know like New York has a lot of big Wall Street jobs.

If you think about what's going on right now in the Wall Street economy things have been humming along whereas New Jersey does in a part of the state but not all the way across the state.

And so there's some examples where sometimes these comparisons, there are different explanations for why there would be variances.

But it's a fair question for lawmakers to say, well, what's the plan to sort of improve New Jersey's unemployment rate?

And what you heard the labor commissioner say during the hearing was a real attention to efforts to do better job training, whether that's apprenticeships or other programs where you can match workers' skills with the jobs that are in demand today in the New Jersey economy.

And so I think there's a big effort under the Sherrill administration to really focus on those job training measures to better match the workforce with the openings that we do have in the state.

Yeah, because we do have a teacher shortage in the state.

We have a nursing shortage in the state, right?

There are jobs available that we actually can't even fill.

I do want to say that is Acting Commissioner Kevin Jarvis, who's heading the Department of Workforce and Labor.

The Sherrill administration has added state jobs, right, government jobs since coming in, and you recently wrote about some of those jobs being at the Department of Environmental Protection.

I'm curious how, why, Juan, can you tell us why they're adding those jobs, and then we're going to get into the impact of them.

Sure, and so this is a plan that would take effect if lawmakers were to approve the Governor's budget proposal, and specifically what she's proposing for the Department of Environmental Protection in the area of permitting operations.

And it might sound, again, a little technical, but when, you know, there's a housing development that's being applied for approval or maybe a big infrastructure project, it all has to go through the DEP and get signed off on from an environmental perspective, and for good reason, right?

This is the checks and balances to make sure our water remains clear, our clean, our air remains clean, wetlands are protected.

We have a lot of wetlands in New Jersey.

But you always hear complaints about it taking a really long time to get an answer on your permit application.

And if you're doing something like that, time is money.

The longer you're waiting, you're maybe making payments on a property or you have other tax obligations.

And so trying to get a speed up in time to get to either that yes or no answer on your permit application.

And so Cheryl's proposal would be to add $4 million to this part of the DEP budget, not a big amount on a $60 billion annual budget, but the idea would be that you'd increase the staff that is taking in and evaluating permit applications so hopefully the responses can get done sooner.

And it's really part of -- you made a brief mention of this, like a system-wide effort that Cheryl has launched since she came into office in January to look at this across state agencies and the DEP is one example.

And of course we know if those permitting jobs get cleared then you get people back to work, let's say if it's a big development project, maybe housing or something like that.

We have to leave it there.

A whole lot more reporting that you've done, but John Reitmeyer, our budget and finance writer for us, thank you so much.

You're welcome.

Under the Dome is made possible in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a private corporation funded by the American people.

Anti-Semitism continues to be a problem here in New Jersey.

The Anti-Defamation League tracks the number of anti-Semitic incidents each year, and preliminary data shows more than 3,300 reported incidents nationally in 2025, and New Jersey's been among the states topping the list in those reports.

The numbers have risen dramatically since the October 7th, 2023 Hamas attack in Israel.

Now, leaders of the Jewish community here have had to deal with the increased risks at their temples and in their communities, leading to increased spending on security.

I'm joined now by Rabbi Daniel Cohen from Temple Shareh Tefilo, Israel, in South Orange.

Rabbi, thanks so much for being with us.

Thank you so much for having me.

What are you seeing and hearing from members of your community when it comes to reports of anti-Semitism?

Overall, the national statistics are really what are being reflected pretty much everywhere.

And we are seeing this rapid rise.

It was happening already before October 7, 2023.

We were already seeing the numbers increasing.

But, obviously, it's become significantly worse since then.

And I don't think there's any synagogue or any Jewish institution that hasn't been impacted by this and hasn't had to really step back and take a real look at how we do things and what we're doing in order to keep our community as safe as possible.

When we talk about... It's challenging times.

When we talk about reported incidents, what types of things are you hearing?

What types of things are happening when it comes to either harassment or actual attacks?

We're hearing about the harassment.

We're hearing about hateful graffiti.

We're hearing online I see disgusting things all the time, but that's online.

If people want to talk and be hateful among themselves, I guess they get to do that.

But we're also seeing the attack in Michigan.

We're seeing people in New York at increasing numbers, especially those who are identifiably Jewish wearing a kippah, a yarmulke, something like that, who are being attacked.

I think it has put everyone a little bit on edge and has certainly made us look at things differently than we have.

I think it's taking all different forms.

I think the other thing you said, which is a really important distinction that you made, which is reported incidents.

The reported incidents have gone up tremendously.

You know, we are-the Jewish community is 2 percent of the American population.

You wouldn't necessarily know that in northern New Jersey here, but we're 2 percent of the population, and the Jewish community accounts for 60 to 70 percent of religiously-based hate crimes over the last few years.

That is astounding and shocking.

And those are the reported incidents.

It's I suspect it's significantly higher than that, obviously.

Right.

People afraid to report or just choosing not to.

Synagogues across the state we know have had to step up security, especially during the High Holy Week, which we just passed.

Have you had to do have you had to take extra measures to ensure safety for your congregation?

So our holidays are in the fall and then we just had Passover and for any time we have a large number of people we certainly want to pay attention to that.

We have absolutely changed how we do things.

I don't think there's any synagogue or Jewish institution that hasn't.

But as I said before we started actually making the changes and addressing how we do things back before the Tree of Life in Pittsburgh.

We saw the numbers rising and we wanted to make sure that we were doing everything that is reasonable to do to keep our community safe.

The good news for us is that local law enforcement has been fantastic.

The federal law enforcement has been superb.

And even our Greater Metro West Federation, which is the umbrella for the Jewish community here in my part of New Jersey, our security personnel have been terrific in allowing us to consult and constantly taking a look at what we're doing.

So we have radically changed what we've done, but it's been incremental over the last few years.

And we are constantly looking to say, what else can we do?

What else should we do?

And if there's something that we should do, we're finding a way to do it because that's our number one priority right now is making sure that our community is safe.

Yeah.

And forgive my misstatement about the timing of the High Holy Days.

I know there there have been reports for one example of a synagogue that had to spend something around five hundred thousand dollars over the course of a few years in security measures.

I would imagine that there is a burden that comes with this not just emotionally but fiscally.

And I know you said you're working with partners but have you had to take on some burden there financially as well.

I can't go into details but I will.

I can simply say yes.

I don't think there's any synagogue that has not had to change what they're doing has not had to increase their spending on security to the point of at this point.

I think it's about 15 percent of most organizations that's across the board.

A recent study that I looked at said about 15 percent of institutional spending is going to security.

And that's the problem.

Right.

That's the problem is not only that we have to spend the money but what no one's really talking about is the fact that we have to in the first place.

What other community in the country has to spend so significantly on security in the way that we're having to in the Jewish community.

And that for me is the real story, the real problem.

And that for me is what people should be screaming about.

And we should be it's a five alarm fire right now.

But the thing is, the Jewish community is the canary in the coal mine.

Inevitably, when hate turns on the Jewish community, it doesn't stop there.

Hate is a cancer.

Bias is a cancer and it metastasizes.

And it's not going to stop with the Jewish community.

So this is not a Jewish issue, Jewish problem.

This is an American problem right now.

And I don't think it's being taken seriously enough.

Yeah, you raise a great point there.

I know that there are members of the Jewish community pushing for some funding down on Capitol Hill.

There are two bills in particular.

One is the Pray Safe Act and one is the Sacred Act.

They really allow more access to federal funding to safeguard these faith institutions.

One, do you support that?

So I have long been an absolute advocate of the separation of church and state.

And so historically I would not have wanted to apply for government grants.

At this point in time, I am grateful that the federal security grant program is there, that the national security grant program is there.

I am grateful for it, and I believe every synagogue and Jewish institutions should actually take advantage of it.

The federal government has been terrific.

Just to give you some numbers, I did a quick look.

In 2007, that program spent $24 million.

It increased significantly for the first time in 2021.

In 2026, it was up to $300 million.

So that is a tenfold increase in 10 years.

And yet it is not nearly enough to cover the security needs for all Jewish institutions.

So the federal government has been terrific, but it's not nearly enough.

And we need a lot more support from the federal government, but also that deals with the symptom of this hate.

The other piece, as I was saying before, that I'm hoping the conversation starts to focus on is, how do we address the hate in the first place?

Because again, it's not a Jewish issue, it's an American issue.

I'm going to do something that may not be fair, but in just a few seconds that's left, how do we address the hate in the first place?

Relationships, first and foremost.

I think when we get to know people.

I also think leadership.

For example, after October 7, when the demonstrations on some campuses started on October 7, 2023, before Israel even retaliated.

And we saw the demonstrations on campus going.

Ben Sasse was the new president of the University of Florida, and he made a clear statement, "We are not going to accept this on our campus.

Freedom of speech is important, but not freedom of ugliness, freedom of threat, freedom of divisiveness, freedom... None of that is going to be accepted."

And they had far fewer problems.

I think there is conversation on the ground.

I think it takes leadership in the communities.

But I think it also takes leadership from our elected officials in our towns, who have been way too slow to step up, in our school districts, who I've worked extensively with our school district, and they have been terrific.

But it took time for them to get there.

And ultimately, I think it's a matter of leadership.

And we need to see more of it focusing on the larger issue, not just the specifics of a synagogue or the Jewish community, but hate in general in America and the tolerance we have for it, that we're seeing acceptance in America for all sorts of ugliness that is unacceptable.

All right, we have to leave it there.

But I really appreciate you coming on and talking with us.

Daniel, Rabbi Daniel Cohen, thank you so much.

Thank you.

All right, that's going to do it for us tonight.

I'm Joanna Gaggis.

For the entire team here at NJ Spotlight News, thanks for being with us.

We'll see you back here tomorrow.

New Jersey Education Association, making public schools great for every child.

[ Music ]