Q: I am concerned about the voucher concept. It's talked about frequently, and it's talked about in the context of free markets and people gravitating towards the most appropriate and most economic situation. But there is a question as to whether this approach will benefit all children, or only the brightest and most motivated students. Secondly, you are providing a subsidy to parents who are already planning on sending their kids to a private school, and in a market environment greater demand will just increase the price of the service. How do you prevent it from inflating the cost of schools in the private sector?

A: Let's look at the two issues you raised. First, you asked if only motivated families would benefit from a market-oriented voucher system. And second, you asked whether this system would inflate the price of quality.

To address your first concern, let's look at the experience of the Milwaukee voucher plan. In Milwaukee, families with children who are NOT doing well in public schools are more likely to take advantage of the voucher system. Parents who have children that are doing well in public school don't want to move them to another school, they're basically satisfied. That's why, under our voucher plan, public schools won't become a ghetto for children with less ability and motivation. In fact, public school test scores are likely to improve because these schools are likely to keep the students that succeed in the learning environment they offer, while students who don't do well will seek out a program that addresses their specific needs.

Let me give you an example. Today a public school district will frequently send a deaf child to a private school that specializes in teaching deaf children. That child's education is paid with public dollars. So we already are using vouchers, but in this case, the school board controls where and when those vouchers are used. In contrast, if poor parents aren't satisfied with the quality of education their child receives in a public school, they have virtually no recourse. Without a viable alternative, how will we ever be able to hold public schools accountable for the quality or cost of the services they provide. In one of the public high schools in Jersey City, only 28% of the children are reading at a level sufficient to pass their high school proficiency test. Only twenty-eight percent! If you talk to parents that have to send their children to a school with these kind of performance numbers, vouchers are an open and shut issue. They say, "You mean you want to give my child the opportunity to go to a school that might work better for him, and you're going to pay the bill?" I say, "Yes, that's what I'm going to do." They say, "Thank God." It's that simple. They don't see vouchers as a theoretical issue, it's a very real thing that means they will be able to make sure their children can get a great education.

The second part of your question concerned the issue of cost inflation. Jersey City can't afford to spend anymore money on education. Our property owners are already over-burdened, and the state is in no position to give us more money. So my legislation limits the voucher to that amount which can be accommodated without increasing state or local spending, and without decreasing per-pupil spending in the public schools.

Here's how it works: We currently receive $6,000 per child from the State Department of Education and local property taxpayers contribute about $3,000 per child. My plan asks the State to give Jersey City the same amount of money we receive today even if some students transfer from a public to a private school. Then, if 5,000 students transfer out of public school, and we continue to receive $6,000 in state funding for these children, we would take this $30 million and put it into a Grant Pool. This pool will be divided up evenly among all the children enrolled in private schools. The 10,000 children already in private schools, plus the 5,000 additional transfers. That would give every child in private school a grant worth about $2,000. Right now a $2,000 grant is large enough to pay for 100% of a private grammar school's tuition and about $500 for after-school tutoring. Since our program allows parents to pay for qualified after-school tutoring programs if any money is left-over, private schools will have an incentive to either keep their costs down or offer after-school programs for their students.

A question you did not ask, but which warrants comment upon is, "How does this program effect our public schools?" First, it decreases the over-crowding problem. Right now, some of our public schools have as many as 38 children per class, while many of our private schools have a fair amount of excess capacity. Second, since we keep all local property tax revenues in the public schools system regardless of how many students transfer to private schools, the per-pupil expenditure in the public school system actually increases. We would still get the same $6,000 per child from the State, but our total contribution of $78 million in local tax dollars would all remain in the public school system, and be divided by fewer students. That would give us more money to spend per child. For example, if 5,000 students transferred from public to private schools, spending would increase from $9,000 per child to over $10,000 per child -- all without increasing state or local taxes by one penny.

Everyone would benefit under my proposal. Granted, you might say there is an inflationary impetus because per-pupil spending will increase in each system. But we won't have to increase our actual total spending by one penny to accommodate this.

Q: What changes have you made or proposed in the area of economic development?

A: Economic planning, by definition, is a difficult thing to do. For example, if you read the Department of Housing and Urban Development's booklet on the HOME loan program (a federally subsidized affordable housing program), you will see that Jersey City is featured as a successful model for other cities to follow. But for all the effort that's spent on the HOME program, very little housing actually gets built. Out of the 40,000 properties in the city, this program has helped us build maybe a few hundred new housing units.

But now let's suppose that I get the streets of Jersey City safe and clean, and assure every parent in Jersey City that their child will go to a good school, and reduce the taxes that every homeowner has to pay. What will happen? Business will grow and expand in Jersey City, jobs will be created, and the value of our real estate will increase. The market will respond to these positive trends and build 2,000 new housing units, not because government arranges special financing, but because our government is creating an environment where people want to live and do business. That's what I would consider to be a successful economic development strategy.

Q: I'm a volunteer working in a tutoring program in the South Bronx and I want to ask a question about illegitimacy. Many analysts say that illegitimacy is driving most of our social problems in our inner cities, and I read recently that if trends continue, projections show that the minority illegitimacy rate will be 80% by the year 2000. Do you see illegitimacy as one of the main driving forces of urban problems, and if so, what can be done about it?

A: I believe the rise in illegitimacy is a by-product of bad government. Its time that we realized that social health, as well as personal fulfillment, arises not only from the elimination of material deprivation, but also from the formation of a social ethic which affirms life in spite of circumstances and encourages people to help their neighbors. Unfortunately, many government policies work against the teaching of this wisdom. Our health, education, and welfare policies have ripped the life out of the social institutions -- family, community, and church -- which historically taught our children these values and reinforced our spirituality.

I think we could help prevent social problems -- like illegitimacy -- if we empower these local organizations to help our young people, rather than depend on help from Washington. Welfare reform, health care choice, and school choice are at the cutting-edge of this effort. By empowering families with the financial opportunity to seek services from their family, church, or local community organizations, we will breath new life into these institutions, which have always sought to minister to the material and spiritual needs of its members. This approach is consistent with our pluralistic traditions and our increasing social heterogeneity. It will support us as we teach our children our own faith and values, instead of, as is the case today, taxing us to support government programs which only propagate one particular ideology.

Q: Would you say that, on balance, the competition between New York City and New Jersey for office space tenants has been a benefit to the region?

A: When people think about the recent competition between New York and New Jersey they assume that New Jersey is giving a lot of special tax breaks to lure businesses across the Hudson. That is an erroneous assumption. But if you were the Mayor of New York City and you had to explain why jobs were leaving, you wouldn't say, "I'm driving them away with high taxes, crumbling infrastructure, and poor services." Instead, you're more likely to say, "They're unfairly luring our companies away." I don't want to give special breaks to anybody, I want to make life better in Jersey City for everybody.