The bad news is that the amount of money available for property-tax relief is shrinking; the good news, there are still a plethora of programs and options available
Once a top priority for government leaders in Trenton, property-tax rebates and other direct-relief programs received nearly $3 billion in funding from the state budget a decade ago.
But this year, with Gov. Chris Christie proposing a $32.5 million reduction in funding for direct property-tax relief in his latest state budget proposal, the total will be just over $1 billion unless lawmakers can convince him to allow for an increase before the next fiscal year begins in July.
The reduction comes as Christie, a second-term Republican, in recent years has instead been using revenue growth to ramp up state contributions to the public-employee pension system, which has been another top priority for Democrats who control the Legislature. Christie has also pointed to his efforts to address property-tax increases at their root, including the 2 percent cap on annual property-tax hikes that he and lawmakers passed on a bipartisan basis in 2010.
Still, data released recently by the state Department of Community Affairs showed the average New Jersey property-tax bill rose to a record high of $8,549 last year, putting new heat on lawmakers to more fully address property taxes as they prepare to run for reelection this year with all 120 legislative seats on the ballot in November.
Ridgewood NJ, the New Jersey pension crisis in 60 seconds . Reader says ,” the unions rule NJ and the politicians are at their beck and call. They’re bankrupting the state and municipalities, and taxpayers get screwed at every turn. Benefits should be diminished big time, but the unions get the vote out to keep the good times rolling. You keep voting in theives and you’re gonna get robbed. Any time the unions want something, assume it’s bad for state and local tax payers”
Executive Order: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States
EXECUTIVE ORDER
– – – – – – –
ENHANCING PUBLIC SAFETY IN THE INTERIOR OF THE
UNITED STATES
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), and in order to ensure the public safety of the American people in communities across the United States as well as to ensure that our Nation’s immigration laws are faithfully executed, I hereby declare the policy of the executive branch to be, and order, as follows:
Section 1. Purpose. Interior enforcement of our Nation’s immigration laws is critically important to the national security and public safety of the United States. Many aliens who illegally enter the United States and those who overstay or otherwise violate the terms of their visas present a significant threat to national security and public safety. This is particularly so for aliens who engage in criminal conduct in the United States.
Sanctuary jurisdictions across the United States willfully violate Federal law in an attempt to shield aliens from removal from the United States. These jurisdictions have caused immeasurable harm to the American people and to the very fabric of our Republic.
Tens of thousands of removable aliens have been released into communities across the country, solely because their home countries refuse to accept their repatriation. Many of these aliens are criminals who have served time in our Federal, State, and local jails. The presence of such individuals in the United States, and the practices of foreign nations that refuse the repatriation of their nationals, are contrary to the national interest.
Although Federal immigration law provides a framework for Federal-State partnerships in enforcing our immigration laws to ensure the removal of aliens who have no right to be in the United States, the Federal Government has failed to discharge this basic sovereign responsibility. We cannot faithfully execute the immigration laws of the United States if we exempt classes or categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement. The purpose of this order is to direct executive departments and agencies (agencies) to employ all lawful means to enforce the immigration laws of the United States.
Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the executive branch to:
(a) Ensure the faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United States, including the INA, against all removable aliens, consistent with Article II, Section 3 of the United States Constitution and section 3331 of title 5, United States Code;
(b) Make use of all available systems and resources to ensure the efficient and faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United States;
(c) Ensure that jurisdictions that fail to comply with applicable Federal law do not receive Federal funds, except as mandated by law;
(d) Ensure that aliens ordered removed from the United States are promptly removed; and
(e) Support victims, and the families of victims, of crimes committed by removable aliens.
Sec. 3. Definitions. The terms of this order, where applicable, shall have the meaning provided by section 1101 of title 8, United States Code.
Sec. 4. Enforcement of the Immigration Laws in the Interior of the United States. In furtherance of the policy described in section 2 of this order, I hereby direct agencies to employ all lawful means to ensure the faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United States against all removable aliens.
Sec. 5. Enforcement Priorities. In executing faithfully the immigration laws of the United States, the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) shall prioritize for removal those aliens described by the Congress in sections 212(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(6)(C), 235, and 237(a)(2) and (4) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(6)(C), 1225, and 1227(a)(2) and (4)), as well as removable aliens who:
(a) Have been convicted of any criminal offense;
(b) Have been charged with any criminal offense, where such charge has not been resolved;
(c) Have committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense;
(d) Have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter or application before a governmental agency;
(e) Have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits;
(f) Are subject to a final order of removal, but who have not complied with their legal obligation to depart the United States; or
(g) In the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security.
Sec. 6. Civil Fines and Penalties. As soon as practicable, and by no later than one year after the date of this order, the Secretary shall issue guidance and promulgate regulations, where required by law, to ensure the assessment and collection of all fines and penalties that the Secretary is authorized under the law to assess and collect from aliens unlawfully present in the United States and from those who facilitate their presence in the United States.
Sec. 7. Additional Enforcement and Removal Officers. The Secretary, through the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, shall, to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, take all appropriate action to hire 10,000 additional immigration officers, who shall complete relevant training and be authorized to perform the law enforcement functions described in section 287 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1357).
Sec. 8. Federal-State Agreements. It is the policy of the executive branch to empower State and local law enforcement agencies across the country to perform the functions of an immigration officer in the interior of the United States to the maximum extent permitted by law.
(a) In furtherance of this policy, the Secretary shall immediately take appropriate action to engage with the Governors of the States, as well as local officials, for the purpose of preparing to enter into agreements under section 287(g) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1357(g)).
(b) To the extent permitted by law and with the consent of State or local officials, as appropriate, the Secretary shall take appropriate action, through agreements under section 287(g) of the INA, or otherwise, to authorize State and local law enforcement officials, as the Secretary determines are qualified and appropriate, to perform the functions of immigration officers in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United States under the direction and the supervision of the Secretary. Such authorization shall be in addition to, rather than in place of, Federal performance of these duties.
(c) To the extent permitted by law, the Secretary may structure each agreement under section 287(g) of the INA in a manner that provides the most effective model for enforcing Federal immigration laws for that jurisdiction.
Sec. 9. Sanctuary Jurisdictions. It is the policy of the executive branch to ensure, to the fullest extent of the law, that a State, or a political subdivision of a State, shall comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373.
(a) In furtherance of this policy, the Attorney General and the Secretary, in their discretion and to the extent consistent with law, shall ensure that jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 (sanctuary jurisdictions) are not eligible to receive Federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes by the Attorney General or the Secretary. The Secretary has the authority to designate, in his discretion and to the extent consistent with law, a jurisdiction as a sanctuary jurisdiction. The Attorney General shall take appropriate enforcement action against any entity that violates 8 U.S.C. 1373, or which has in effect a statute, policy, or practice that prevents or hinders the enforcement of Federal law.
(b) To better inform the public regarding the public safety threats associated with sanctuary jurisdictions, the Secretary shall utilize the Declined Detainer Outcome Report or its equivalent and, on a weekly basis, make public a comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens and any jurisdiction that ignored or otherwise failed to honor any detainers with respect to such aliens.
(c) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget is directed to obtain and provide relevant and responsive information on all Federal grant money that currently is received by any sanctuary jurisdiction.
Sec. 10. Review of Previous Immigration Actions and Policies. (a) The Secretary shall immediately take all appropriate action to terminate the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) described in the memorandum issued by the Secretary on November 20, 2014, and to reinstitute the immigration program known as “Secure Communities” referenced in that memorandum.
(b) The Secretary shall review agency regulations, policies, and procedures for consistency with this order and, if required, publish for notice and comment proposed regulations rescinding or revising any regulations inconsistent with this order and shall consider whether to withdraw or modify any inconsistent policies and procedures, as appropriate and consistent with the law.
(c) To protect our communities and better facilitate the identification, detention, and removal of criminal aliens within constitutional and statutory parameters, the Secretary shall consolidate and revise any applicable forms to more effectively communicate with recipient law enforcement agencies.
Sec. 11. Department of Justice Prosecutions of Immigration Violators. The Attorney General and the Secretary shall work together to develop and implement a program that ensures that adequate resources are devoted to the prosecution of criminal immigration offenses in the United States, and to develop cooperative strategies to reduce violent crime and the reach of transnational criminal organizations into the United States.
Sec. 12. Recalcitrant Countries. The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State shall cooperate to effectively implement the sanctions provided by section 243(d) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1253(d)), as appropriate. The Secretary of State shall, to the maximum extent permitted by law, ensure that diplomatic efforts and negotiations with foreign states include as a condition precedent the acceptance by those foreign states of their nationals who are subject to removal from the United States.
Sec. 13. Office for Victims of Crimes Committed by Removable Aliens. The Secretary shall direct the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to take all appropriate and lawful action to establish within U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement an office to provide proactive, timely, adequate, and professional services to victims of crimes committed by removable aliens and the family members of such victims. This office shall provide quarterly reports studying the effects of the victimization by criminal aliens present in the United States.
Sec. 14. Privacy Act. Agencies shall, to the extent consistent with applicable law, ensure that their privacy policies exclude persons who are not United States citizens or lawful permanent residents from the protections of the Privacy Act regarding personally identifiable information.
Sec. 15. Reporting. Except as otherwise provided in this order, the Secretary and the Attorney General shall each submit to the President a report on the progress of the directives contained in this order within 90 days of the date of this order and again within 180 days of the date of this order.
Sec. 16. Transparency. To promote the transparency and situational awareness of criminal aliens in the United States, the Secretary and the Attorney General are hereby directed to collect relevant data and provide quarterly reports on the following:
(a) the immigration status of all aliens incarcerated under the supervision of the Federal Bureau of Prisons;
(b) the immigration status of all aliens incarcerated as Federal pretrial detainees under the supervision of the United States Marshals Service; and
(c) the immigration status of all convicted aliens incarcerated in State prisons and local detention centers throughout the United States.
Sec. 17. Personnel Actions. The Office of Personnel Management shall take appropriate and lawful action to facilitate hiring personnel to implement this order.
Sec. 18. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Some Republicans who opposed the deal to replenish the Transportation Trust Fund have a rallying cry after losing that fight: The new money should only be spent on roads.
Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno, kicking off her campaign for governor on Tuesday, implied as much in her speech. She criticized the new $16 billion deal, which includes $12 billion in borrowing over eight years and a 23-cent per gallon increase in the gas tax, saying the state “cannot afford to borrow billions of dollars to build a new rail line when our roads and our bridges are crumbling.”
State and local governments have promised an estimated $5.6 trillion in pension benefits that they cannot afford to pay. (Photo: iStock Photos)
COMMENTARY BY
Rachel Greszler
Rachel Greszler is a senior policy analyst in economics and entitlements at The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis. Read her research.
Pensions are a huge part of public employees’ compensation, often providing a quarter to a third of their total compensation. A new report from the American Legislative Exchange Council shows how politicians play politics with public pensions, threatening public employees and taxpayers alike.
State and local governments across the U.S. hold about $3.8 trillion in public employee pension assets. Unfortunately, the politicians and pension officials who manage these assets often sacrifice higher returns for personal and political gain.
Pension plan officials are supposed to look out for the best interests of pension beneficiaries, but the American Legislative Exchange Council report, “Keeping the Promise: Getting Politics Out of Pensions,” tells a different story:
Rather than investing to earn the best return for workers, [lawmakers and pension plan officials] use pension funds in a misguided attempt to boost their local economies, provide kickbacks to their political supporters, reward industries they like, punish those they don’t, and bully corporations into silence and behaving as they see fit.
The report shows three ways that pension officials play politics with public worker pensions:
1. Economically targeted investments. These are a way for public pension plans to buoy local projects at the cost of receiving significantly lower returns. These subpar investments strip pensions of billions of dollars in returns. Alabama is the biggest offender, with over 16 percent of its pension assets invested in them.
One particularly egregious example is Alabama’s pension fund investment in the troubled oil repair and shipbuilding firm Signal International. Alabama invested $21 million and later loaned $73 million to Signal (despite three years of it providing 11 percent losses).
Shortly thereafter, Signal was forced to pay $21 million to settle what was called “one of the largest cases of labor trafficking in modern times.” Signal later entered bankruptcy and was purchased by one of Alabama’s pension funds.
2. Political kickbacks. These allow private individuals and companies to buy access to public pension investments by making political contributions to certain local politicians, and by lobbying pension funds to invest in them. Investments based on politics instead of performance costs the average pension fund over $200 million a year.
The California Public Employees’ Retirement System, known as CalPERS, suffered massive losses from political investments, largely at the helm of board member and union leader Charles Valdes.
Despite having no investment experience and twice filing for personal bankruptcy, Valdes spent 25 years as a CalPERS board member where he added significantly to pension deficits by granting investment contracts to political donors and engaging in suspect behavior with other board members.
During his 13 years as the investment committee chair, CalPERS experienced one of the worst investment performances of any public pension plan in the nation.
3. Political crusades. These are a way for politicians and pension officials to use pension investments to advance political views or causes. The most common example of late is pension funds divesting from energy companies.
Since divestment is based on political agendas instead of returns, it should come as no surprise that it results in significantly lower returns. A hypothetical portfolio showed divestment from energy products resulted in a 23 percent loss over five years, compared to no divestment.
There are also significant administrative and frictional costs (the impact of selling large quantities at once). Administrative costs for large college endowments were 12 times higher than socially conscious funds, and frictional costs were estimated to reduce the value of a fund by 2 to 12 percent over 20 years.
Moreover, political crusades have extended from certain sectors of the economy to personal objections.
For example, the American Federation of Teachers union has used its influence over an estimated $1 trillion in pension assets to “blacklist” about three dozen individual hedge fund managers who donated to causes and organizations that the union doesn’t like. Consequently, pension funds in at least seven states divested their pensions from these hedge fund managers to some degree.
One of the main reasons state and local pensions can get away with politically motivated pension fund management is that they lack adequate regulations and enforcement. State and local pensions are not subject to the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, but rather are regulated by states themselves.
The easiest way for states to eliminate the negative influence of politics in pensions is to shift to defined contribution plans. This would require governments to pay their workers’ retirement benefits immediately and would prevent politicians from having any role in workers’ personal investment decisions. Moreover, taxpayers would no longer be on the hook for unfunded promises.
Short of a complete shift to defined contribution plans, however, states need to strengthen fiduciary responsibilities to ensure pension officials are acting in the exclusive interests of participants, require greater oversight and transparency of public pension operations, and diversify pension boards.
State and local governments have already promised an estimated $5.6 trillion in pension benefits that they can’t afford to pay. Governments cannot afford to continue sacrificing valuable investment returns for the sake of short-term political and personal gains.
Ridgewood NJ, guess that 23-cent-per-gallon increase in the gas tax take has finally taken effect. Drivers report a surge in New Jersey Gas Prices.
In the well-publicised deal, with Governor Christie, Democrat Senate President Steve Sweeney and Democrat Assembly Speaker Vincent Prieto agreed to the huge gas tax increase.
Prices of regular unleaded gasoline in June were around $2.10 and now prices seem to have stabilized at $2.33. While other media sources are filled with wild stories of OPEC meddling and Russian hacking conspiracies, in the words of former President Bill Clinton its the “TAX” stupid.
By Stephen Stirling | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com
on December 13, 2016 at 8:36 AM, updated December 13, 2016 at 3:06 PM
The struggles of Atlantic City are well documented.
Casino closures. The threat of bankruptcy. The recent state takeover.
But while much has been made about the pain being felt by the city and its most famous commercial tenants, new data show its residents likely feel the sting more than most.
NJ gas tax could be used to prop up public pension system
By Michael Symons December 8, 2016 6:39 PM
In a roundabout way, revenues from the increased gas tax might help shore up New Jersey’s beleaguered pension funds.
A proposed bill, S2842/A4388, would enable the Transportation Trust Fund to borrow directly from the pension funds, rather than sell bonds to investors. There would be no cap to how much could be borrowed. The pension funds are typically limited to buying 10 percent of any single bond sale.
Senate President Stephen Sweeney, D-Gloucester, said the pension funds would benefit from earning a higher interest rate than they do buying U.S. Treasury bonds. And the TTF would avoid paying the fees normally associated with a bond sale, Sweeney said.
“Why are we giving fees to Wall Street? Why are we letting other people make interest off of us when we have a pension fund that is woefully underfunded?” Sweeney said.
Sweeney estimated the impact by talking about a hypothetical $1.2 billion in borrowing by the TTF, which he said would cost the TTF $60 million in interest, at an interest rate of 5 percent, and $6 million in underwriting fees to Wall Street.
“The money is there. This is a safe bet. This is not a risk. We don’t want to risk people’s pension funds,” Sweeney said. “Why pay someone else 5 percent when we could pay ourselves?”
The bill wouldn’t require the pension funds to invest in TTF and New Jersey Infrastructure Bank bonds, but it would lift the limits on what the State Investment Council could choose to do. Other types of state debt, such as for school construction, would not be included.
Christie gets bipartisan plan that he calls ‘more fair than the previous proposals,’ but it offers no constitutional guarantee enforcing payments
After failing to find any common ground for the past several years over the best way to address New Jersey’s grossly underfunded public-employee pension system, state lawmakers reached a rare, bipartisan agreement yesterday, voting in favor of legislation requiring quarterly instead of yearly state pension contributions.
The measure — which legislative leaders say they are confident Gov. Chris Christie will eventually sign — would help the $73 billion pension system by breaking up the annual state pension contribution into smaller installments that the sponsors hope will be easier for the state to afford than the lump sum that administrations typically try to make at the end of each fiscal year.
Depositing the payments on a quarterly basis would also protect more of the pension contribution from end-of-the-year budget cuts and allow the pension system, which is professionally managed, to generate bigger investment returns by getting more money into the system earlier in the fiscal year.
Ridgewood NJ, The nation’s second-lowest gas tax ended officially at 12:01 a.m. on Tuesday, Nov. 1, and was replaced by one of the highest per-gallon rates in the nation , The .23 cent increase gives New Jersey now 37.5 cents-per-gallon.
While the party line from Trenton is that money will be used to refill the depleted TTF or Transportation Trust Fund providing the money New Jersey bridges and roads need for a massive investment .
A few things to keep in mind when you pay up at the pump;
The average cost of road repair in the US is $39,000 per mile but in NJ it’s $2 million a mile; New Jersey spends eight times the national average on its state-controlled highways.
The Reason Foundation says New Jersey spends just over $2 million per state-controlled mile on construction, maintenance and administration, triple the roughly $675,000 spent by the next-highest state, Massachusetts, and more than eight times the national average of $39,000. I call it “out of control” spending.
The state DOT disputes that number. But with reports the reconstruction of Route 35 were more than $27 million per mile, it’s clear our costs are out of control.
The state of New Jersey funds highway, bridge, and rail projects through its Transportation Trust Fund, which relies on borrowing and gas tax revenue to contribute $1.225 billion to the state’s overall $1.6 billion construction budget this year. Can anyone say “Ponzi Scheme” ?
Why the deficit and lack of funds? Is it because the corruption in Trenton has already used these allocated tax monies to offset other programs, loans, or deficits. Bad deals are made by politicians looking to get elected, guaranteeing political donations from unions, keeping project labor agreements and prevailing wages artificially inflating the costs of road work.
By some accounts, New Jersey spends the 3rd most of any state on transportation funding.
So as we say good bye to cheap gas perhaps you are also saying good bye to one of the last reasons left for living in New Jersey .Let’s face it New Jersey is last in almost everything and being the worst place to live is also even getting more expensive.
By Alex Napoliello and Stephen Stirling | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com
on October 20, 2016 at 7:39 AM, updated October 20, 2016 at 7:45 AM
State lawmakers pledged to expedite an overhaul of New Jersey’s antiquated 911 system after a report revealed that hundreds of millions of dollars raised to pay for the live-saving upgrade had been spent elsewhere.
But they conceded that finding the money will be tricky.
Proposals include expanding a surcharge on monthly phone bills to cover disposable cell phones, or again asking voters to amend the state Constitution to make sure future money raised goes toward the upgrade.
“It’s not as if we’re sitting on a billion dollars someplace,” Assemblyman John Wisniewski (D-Middlesex) said. “We’re going to have to look the voters in the eye and say we’re going to have to find a revenue source or cut funds allocated elsewhere to make up for money that’s been misallocated.”
By Larry Higgs | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com
on October 19, 2016 at 9:00 AM, updated October 19, 2016 at 11:13 AM
As little as three years ago, an NJ.com story declared the “bad old days of the DMV” — long lines, rude employees and a bureaucracy from hell, were a thing of the past.
In 2002, then Gov. James E. McGreevey convened the “Fix DMV” commission, which delivered a report about how to deal with the Division of Motor Vehicles chronic problems of lines, long waits and inefficiencies. The Nov. 2002 report led to the creation of the current Motor Vehicle Commission.
Under the MVC, wait times and lines had gotten shorter. Even beleaguered Jersey drivers stuck up for the agency, saying that it was better than it used to be.
By Alex Napoliello and Stephen Stirling | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com
on October 13, 2016 at 7:03 AM, updated October 14, 2016 at 2:52 PM
In the fall of 2013, shoppers at the Garden State Plaza mall in Paramus fled in terror as a man with a rifle stalked the halls. Police officers, going through each store one by one, rescued dozens of people with no injuries.
But what if those in the mall could have given police an eye into the madness? What if they could have sent cell phone photos and videos, revealing their location and helping track the gunman’s whereabouts?
That life-saving technology exists. And for more than a decade, every person in New Jersey with a phone has paid a tax on their monthly bill to make it happen, handing over a whopping $1.37 billion to Trenton.
By Spencer Kent | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com
on October 16, 2016 at 1:24 PM, updated October 16, 2016 at 1:31 PM
EDISON — After a felon had made it on this year’s township school board ballot, lawmakers introduced bills that would require all board of education candidates to “certify under oath they have never been convicted of crimes that would disqualify them from campaigning for school boards.”
State Sen. Patrick Diegnan (D-Middlesex) and Assemblyman Robert Karabinchak (D-Middlesex) have introduced identical bills in the state Senate and state Assembly.
Currently, felons convicted offirst- and second-degree crimes cannot serve in school district positions, according to state Department of Education regulations. But those felons can serve as candidates and have their names on the ballot since criminal background checks are not conducted until after the election.
If enacted, the bills would “require school board candidates to file a formal certification — along with their nominating petition — affirming they were never convicted of any disqualifying crimes,” according to a statement from Karabinchak’s office.
N.J. residents owe $15K per person in pension debt. Compromise is the only fix | Opinion
By Star-Ledger Guest Columnist
on October 02, 2016 at 9:30 AM
By Steven Malanga
New Jersey residents have absorbed so much bad news about our state government pension fund that they don’t need much more to convince them the situation has become critical.
But a new report applying stricter standards to all state pension accounting is sobering nonetheless, because it now estimates that New Jersey has the nation’s worst problem, with average debt per resident that’s highest among states, and a funding level below every state but one.
Warning: Undefined array key "sfsi_riaIcon_order" in /home/eagle1522/public_html/theridgewoodblog.net/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-icons/libs/controllers/sfsi_frontpopUp.php on line 165
Warning: Undefined array key "sfsi_inhaIcon_order" in /home/eagle1522/public_html/theridgewoodblog.net/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-icons/libs/controllers/sfsi_frontpopUp.php on line 166
Warning: Undefined array key "sfsi_mastodonIcon_order" in /home/eagle1522/public_html/theridgewoodblog.net/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-icons/libs/controllers/sfsi_frontpopUp.php on line 177
