|
Re: Save Riverview Park!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
At the Ward E "Recreation Master Plan" public meeting, the consultant reported that -
1- the proposed tennis and volley ball courts are "out" of Fisk-Riverview park. Follow up on this... 2- proposal B, ballfields is out for Reservior #3 (pulled by the Mayor). If I heard wrong, other please correct.
Posted on: 2007/1/24 4:12
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer Pay-to-Play Press Release- Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Actually, the proposed ordinance bans the contribution from a year prior to being A) designated developer or the RFQ which ever is longer for an existing redevelopment plan or B) designated developer or the authorization of the study to determine if an area is in need of redevelopment (blight study), whichever is shorter through the completion of the redevelopment project. A long time for a promise to be kept. The Liberty Harbor North redevelopment project has been going 20+ years and counting
I believe that the ordinance goes much further than just the appearance of impropriety, it makes a current practice illegal. Yes, in my mind a conflict of interest currently exists and council members should recuse them from redevelopment related votes that involve their campaign donors, but since our elected officials have not or do not appear to see it the same way, banning this conflict of interest needs to be codified into law. Also, the Mayor signs off on some of these ordinances, changes and agreements, how does he recuse himself. I recall that Councilman Fulop, prior to running for the council office, raised the recusal issue when speaking before the council a couple of years ago against tax abatement agreements. The response was, which is the same response we hear today, is that the contibutions do not unduly influence council members and the Mayor's decisions and that their decisions are soley based on the public interest. Enough said, I support the ordinance and hope others will. Quote:
Posted on: 2007/1/22 19:28
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer Pay-to-Play Press Release- Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I understand and agree with your point.
Yes, Civic JC and I support this ordinance. This is disclosed in Councilman Fulop's press release which started this discussion thread, though not in the follow up posting. I could have better stated that "I and/or Civic JC believe that it is not relevant to the merits of the proposed ordinance whether Councilman Fulop or any other council members have accepted campaign contributions from developers." While we did not draft the ordinance for Councilman Fulop, it is similiar to one which we proposed in June 2006 and both are based on the model ordinance from Citizen's Campaign. Lastly, no intent to hide my/our support of this ordinance. Quote:
Posted on: 2007/1/22 18:52
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Jersey City's Parks and Open Space Master Plan
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Just reviewing this again and realized that the draft report is now titled "Recreation Master Plan".
While the draft report does discuss open space needs and deficit, it proposses covering green space with recreational facilities in existing mostly passive parks, rather than centralizing athletic fields and the like in athletic complexes with ammenities to support both ad hoc use and official leagues. In the draft, there are many proposals to pave over green space to introduce or increase recreational facilities throughout the downtown and the city. While changing the recreational element could makes sense to meet current favor, it would seem counter productive reduce greenspace. What do others think?
Posted on: 2007/1/22 12:42
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer Pay-to-Play Press Release- Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
At the last council meeting, Council President Vega stated that Councilman Fulop\'s proposed Redevelopment Pay to Play Reform ordinance would be on the agenda for January 24th.
In the world of our city council, we will be able to confirm this by the end of the caucus meeting on January 22. If you have interest in how the muncipal council works, stop by City Hall, 280 Grove St., a little before 6pm, 2nd Floor, Monday evening. You can observe, but not speak. If confirmed that the ordinance is on the agenda, it will come up to be introduced - Date: Wednesday, January 24th Time: 6 pm Place: Council Chambers, City Hall, 280 Grove Street If you wish to speak in support (or opposition), you can do so during the open speaking portion of the council meeting by calling the City Clerk\'s office on Monday or Tuesday at (201) 547-5150. Note that the first reading and vote to introduce the ordinance does not provide for public comment. If you speak during the public speaking portion of the meeting, the vote will have been done to either introduce or not introduce the ordinance. Whether Councilman Fulop or any other council members have accepted campaign contributions from developers is not relevant. This is a vital ordinance and if enacted could have far reaching positive effects on improving our municipal government. I have said enough about this issue here on this board. For more information, visit Civic JC\'s website for Councilman Fulop\'s press release, Civic JC\'s op/ed article and Civic JC\'s request for support at - www.CIVICJC.org The ordinance has been designed and promoted by Citizen\'s Campaign - www.jointhecampaign.org Hopefully, upon the conclusion of Wednesday\'s council meeting, we will be able to thank at least five of our council members for voting to introduce the ordinance....
Posted on: 2007/1/22 12:31
|
|||
|
||||
|
Reform
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
In today?s, January 20th, ?Political Insider? column by Agustin Torres, (not online yet) there is a small paragraph which he pinpoints perhaps our elected officials opposition to the Governor?s plan on property taxes (and benefit to JC citizens). Duel office holding is just a drop in the bucket (though symbolic), this is big dollars....
?They also are not happy with the 4 percent annual tax levy cap, which they call unrealistic if it does not provide for the increase of tax ratables, usually through development?
Posted on: 2007/1/20 15:17
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: POWER PLAY? "This would kill urban areas like Hudson County," Manzo said - Fulop is not so sure.
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Here is a thought and I am not sure if I am understanding it correctly-
If tax revenues are capped at 4% increases annually and, Jersey City municipal tax revenues increase by more than the 4% due to new development coming on line and tax abatement agreements disproportionatley funneling more revenue into the city, Could the cap effectively push down the taxes on Jersey City conventionally taxed properties? In effect, is this not a spending cap, while revenues should grow? Would this scenario, now actually change the tax abatement arguements (for the positive?) , though other Hudson County municipalities may really scream now.
Posted on: 2007/1/19 15:01
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Support Redevelopment Pay to Play Reform
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
The proposed ordinance was not on the agenda for the Jan 10 councilmeeting. Council President Vega advised that he referred it to the Corporation Council for review and that it would then be placed on the January 24th agenda.
For those who have not done so already, please show support and contact your council person, the three at large and Mayor Healy. Thank you, Dan
Posted on: 2007/1/17 14:51
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Jersey City's Parks and Open Space Master Plan
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
There are some "interesting" recomendations in the draft plan.
The draft plan can be viewed here - Jersey City Draft Master Plan Warning, it is a big pdf file. After reviewing, if you have comments/concerns, please share with info@civicjc.org. Of course, please attend the public meetings and provide feedback to the study.
Posted on: 2007/1/9 15:50
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer Pay-to-Play Press Release- Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Good questions and points.
Yes, it covers professionals and consultants here - [/quote]Section XXXX.4. Contribution Restrictions and Disclosure Requirement Applicability to Consultants. (a) The contribution and disclosure requirements in this Ordinance shall apply to all Redevelopers as well as professionals, as defined in N.J.S.A 40A:11-1 et seq., consultants or lobbyists contracted or employed by the Redeveloper ultimately designated as the Redeveloper to provide services related to the: 1. Lobbying of municipal government officials in connection with the examination of an area and its designation as an area in need of redevelopment or in connection with the preparation, consultation and adoption of the redevelopment plan; 2. Obtaining the designation or appointment as Redeveloper; 3. Negotiating the terms of a redevelopment agreement or any amendments or modifications Thereto; and/or 4. The performance of professional services in completing the terms of the redevelopment Agreement by consultants, lobbyists, or professional; it being understood that nothing herein shall be interpreted to include tradesmen, craftsmen, or other persons licensed in connection with performing construction or construction related services (e.g. electricians, plumbers, etc.) in this prohibition. (b) It shall be a violation of this ordinance, and shall require immediate termination of the consultant?s contract, for a consultant to violate the contribution limits or fail to disclose a contribution as required in this Ordinance. (c) A redeveloper who participates in, or facilitates, the circumvention of the contribution restrictions through consultants or professionals shall be deemed to be in Violation of this Ordinance. (d) All redevelopment agreements or amendments thereto shall include a provision proving for the enforcement of the consultant?s termination in the event of violation of this ordinance. The proposed ordinance also addresses spouses, children etct here- [/quote] (c) As defined in N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-3, ( the ?Act?) a ?Redeveloper? means any person, firm, corporation partnership or limited liability company that shall enter into or propose to Enter into a contract with the City or its designated Redevelopment Entity for the Redevelopment or rehabilitation of an area in need of redevelopment, or an area in need of rehabilitation , or any part thereof, under the provisions of the Act, or for any construction or other work forming part of a redevelopment or rehabilitation project. For purposes of this ordinance the definition of a Redeveloper includes an individual, including an individual?s spouse, an any non-emancipated child living at the same address; firm; corporation; professional corporation; partnership; organization or association, including all principals who own ten percent (10%) or more of the equity in the corporation or business trust, partners and officers employed by the entity as well as nay subsidiaries directly controlled by the Redeveloper, and excluding sub-contractors or subsidiaries in which Redeveloper has a ten (10%) percent or more ownership interest. I hope that everyone who concurs with Councilman Fulop's proposal, besides posting here will also send the emails to their councilperson, the three at large and Mayor Healy, along with letters/emails to the Jersey Journal and Jersey City Reporter. [quote] Gary wrote: The mayor's weak argument speaks more to the need for public financing of elections than to the need to continue to allow developers to contribute. His suggestion that Fulop turn down developer dollars while the competition rakes in their cash is unrealistic. I commend the councilman for proposing a set of rules that will set a level playing field for all candidates. Healy's letter raises one important question, though. Will this ordinance leave the cadre of attorneys, engineers, architects, etc. who are part of the "development community" here free to continue contributing? If so, would this ordinance achieve the desired results? And beyond that, what would be in place to stop a developer's spouse, parent, child or best friend from writing a big fat check to the mayor's re-election kitty?
Posted on: 2007/1/9 15:40
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Jersey City Deputy Mayor & Former Director of Water Department Wanted Tip to Marry Couple.
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Worse than the crime itself, is the lack of response by this administration. If find Czaplicki's lack of corrective action very disturbing and am left to assume that there could be more serious transgressions that the administration has turned a blind eye to.
We will soon be reading about once again another conflict of interest in this administration, that the mayor has shrugged off. What will it take to get the masses to get fed up and show up at City Hall?
Posted on: 2007/1/6 2:11
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Support Redevelopment Pay to Play Reform
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
The Redevelopment Pay to Play Reform ordinance has not been challenged.
Nor is Citizen's Campaign aware of any forthcoming challenges. Quote:
Posted on: 2007/1/5 19:28
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Support Redevelopment Pay to Play Reform
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
For all the gripes and complaining on JCList, this is an opportunity for each of us to help effect change for the better.
The public needs to communicate support and make it dificult for our current city council members to oppose, block or delay this legislation. Please take the time to contact your council person, the three at large and Mayor Healy. This is even easier to do than voting.
Posted on: 2007/1/4 21:49
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Only two major donors among 39 'designated developers'
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
The article does not define "major" and implies that these major donors contributed to the county party which if it then flows to local candidates is referred to as "wheeling" which the proposed ordinance would ban.
In the main article on this initiative, a developer is quoted as contributing to all of our city council members. Now, I might consider this developer a "major donor". Where the articles came up a little short, is in describing the huge financial benefits that developers can be granted in the redevelopment process, ie. tax abatements. If every councilmember receives a campaign contribution from a developer do you think these councilmembers should then be able to vote on granting the developer tax incentives? GP, please support his ordinance and send, email, call or fax, your council person, the three at large council members and Mayor Healy.
Posted on: 2007/1/4 21:41
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: NYT Op-Ed on apathy
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Councilman Fulop has announced that he will present a Redevelopment Pay to Play Reform ordinance at the January 10th City Council meeting. A copy of his press release can be found here Councilman Fulop Proposes Developer Pay-to-Play Reform Initiative
You can make a difference by contacting the Mayor and Council and ask them to enact this important legislation. Contact info will be posted shortly.
Posted on: 2007/1/3 15:20
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Greenville and West Side: Planning aims to save large Victorian homes - by increasing min. lot s
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
"r_pinkowitz" was instrumental in getting this important zoning change back on track .
While the first reading does not provide for public comment, the public can speak on the issue during the public speaking portion of the meeting, by calling the City Clerks office 201.547.5150 on the 8th or 9th. The second reading provides for public comment and you do not need to sign up in advance. Both this meeting on Jan 10 and the next on January 24 are important. Councilman Fulop will be presenting a Redevelopment Pay to Play Reform ordinance also on Jan 10th. His press release and Civic JC's endorsement of the ordinance can be found at www.civicjc.org. More info to be posted on JCList. For positive change the public needs to speak out and be heard by calling, writing, faxing, and / or emailing the Mayor and City Council members. It can make the difference. Quote:
Posted on: 2007/1/3 15:13
|
|||
|
||||
This will be this first reading, and the council will vote to introduce the ordinance, and in two weeks at the following meeting, they will vote to adopt this ordinance. |
Re: From the JJ: Powerhouse vote target of an ethics complaint
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Maybe Grove Path's on to something with a name change...
This is the text of Civic JC's press release on this issue - Civic JC PO Box 248 Jersey City, NJ 07303-0248 Contact: Daniel Levin, president, dlevin@civicjc.org Andrew Hubsch, vice president, ahubsch@civicjc.org Press Release November 28, 2006 CIVIC JC ASKS ETHICS BOARD TO APPLY STATE CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATUTE TO ALL MUNICIPAL BOARDS Jersey City, NJ - Civic JC has submitted a two part request to the Jersey City Ethical Standards Board. The first part of the request is for the Ethical Standards Board to determine if a specific vote of the Planning Board violated N.J.S.A. 40A:9-22 N.J.S.A 40A:9-22.5(d) which states: ?No local government officer or employee shall act in his official capacity in any matter where he, a member of his immediate family, or a business organization in which he has an interest, has a direct or indirect financial or personal involvement that might reasonably be expected to impair his objectivity or independence of judgment? The second part of the related request is for the Ethical Standards Board to clearly determine whether the entire statute provision cited is applicable to all sitting city board members, and have an appropriate amendment added to all local board rules, which parallels the state statute for the purpose of clarity. Daniel Levin, Civic JC president said, ?we must implement enforceable rules to prevent conflicts of interests that could distort municipal board decisions that especially in the case of the Planning Board are irrevocable and involve billions of dollars in development.? Civic JC is a non-partisan, community-based initiative, designed to promote a comprehensive, positive vision for the future of Jersey City as a ?World Class City? and promote good government practices. Civic JC's request to the Ethical Standards Board may be viewed here - civicjc.org
Posted on: 2006/12/7 19:46
|
|||
|
||||
|
Project goes before Planning Board tonight
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Please be advised the following items will be heard at a Regular Meeting of the Jersey City Planning Board, scheduled for Tuesday, December 5, 2006 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 2 floor at 280 Grove Street, Jersey City.
14. Case: P06-124 Preliminary Major Site Plan with ?c? variances Applicant: Newport Associates Development Co. Attorney: Charles Harrington Address: 270 & 310 Tenth St. Block: 323 Lot: 1 Block: 360 Lot: 1 Zone: Jersey Avenue Redevelopment Plan Area Description: Two new 6-story multi-family residential buildings atop the 10th Street embankment. 163 units per building (total 326 units) and 260 parking spaces. Also included is the widening of Coles Street. Deviations: parking, front yard setback (above embankment wall), horizontal visual cue
Posted on: 2006/12/5 16:19
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: La Conguita in Times
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
The service has improved dramatically the few years, since renovation. Friendly, accomodating ..... one of the "gems" of downtown JC.
Other than sometimes asking for an extra shot of espresso in the cafe con leche, no gripes what so ever.
Posted on: 2006/12/3 12:53
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Dalton has had enough of JCPA
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Yes, without question, Robert Dalton was a bright spot in the current administration. He took on a lot in his brief tenure.
The Mayor should be held accountable and answer for Dalton's short tenure along with other short term appointments (good or bad like the Police Chief). mrrogers - can you tell us more about the parking lot for Newark Ave? where? downtown/uptown? Quote:
Posted on: 2006/11/30 19:00
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: shore club - property tax too high?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Is this not all in a vacum unless you compare municipal pilot payments to a non-abatement properties total real estate tax bill; municipal, school and county taxes.
I still would like to be able to get a clear explanation how locked in PILOT payment agreements impact non-abated properties' total real estate taxes, not just the municipal portion. Unlike most municipal officeholders, I am just as concerned about school and county taxes (and services). Quote:
Posted on: 2006/11/22 16:41
|
|||
|
||||
|
NJ Attorney General - Corruption Is Charged Over a Common Practice
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
In a press release and NY Times article today, NJ Attorney General Stuart Rabner announced the indictment of the mayor of a small Salem County community on charges of offering a political opponent two municipal jobs if he would drop out of this month?s race.
See - Corruption Is Charged Over a Common Practice During the Jersey City municipal elections in 2005, two council candidates, now councilwomen publically demanded jobs for relatives/workers in return for supporting Mayor Healy's campaign for a full term - **** "Richardson said she was contacted by Healy three weeks before the announcement about joining his ticket, but it didn't work out. "When he asked me, I said that I would definitely think about it, but there were certain conditions that we had to work out beforehand," said Richardson. One of those conditions was that Richardson's son-in-law, an employee of the city's Division of Commerce would be considered for the position of director when former director Lenny Grenier stepped down on Jan. 31. But the position ended up going to another person." * "Even Willie Flood, who ran for mayor against Healy in the November special election, was not seen as a surprise candidate when she received Healy's endorsement for an at-large seat at a luncheon last Saturday at the Liberty House Restaurant. Flood previously ran on a ticket fielded by Healy when he was a candidate for mayor in 1997 against incumbent Bret Schundler. Flood said at the luncheon that a deal was made with Healy in the months after the November special election, allowing for her to run on his slate. "We met, and he asked me if I would run with him," she said. "I agreed, but I wanted to make sure that the young people who worked on my campaign would be offered some kind of employment since they worked for no money." Flood said the employment would either be on a city or county administrative level." *** These quotes are from the Jersey City Reporter article of 2/20/2005- Announcements for mayor, council seats spur intrigue
Posted on: 2006/11/22 16:23
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Waterfront Abatements on Agenda at City Hall Tonight 11/21/06
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
When the Redevelopment Authority selected Metrovest over national developers who offered more money for the buildings, Councilman Gaughan was quoted as saying he supported Metrovest because they promised to do the project without tax abatements......
Quote:
Posted on: 2006/11/22 3:23
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: "Pension abuse is rampant and outrageous," said Mayor Healy, "We need to have one job, one pension."
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
There is nothing stopping Mayor Healy from implementing a "one job" policy in his administration as a demonstration of leadership on this issue.
Quote: "Pension abuse is rampant and outrageous, and I applaud any effort at reforming the system," said Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah Healy. "We need to have one job, one pension." Quote:
Posted on: 2006/11/15 18:40
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Steven Fulop - Newark Avenue Update
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Agree, thank you sharing this information so quickly-
Quote:
Posted on: 2006/11/15 18:23
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New Redevelopment Plan comming for downtown???
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I obtained a copy of the resolution passed by city council, it authorized the Planning Board to conduct what is known as the blight study to deterimine if the area is in need of redevelopment. This is the first step to create a redevelopment plan.
As I mentioned in my original post, early on in the redevelopment process, the City Planning Dept usually reaches out to stakeholders which in this case has yet to occur. Of course there have been other redevelopment plans that were fast-tracked and developer driven that seemed to be done in ways to avoid public input. These latter plans generally were not developer neutral and developers were designated without going through a "request for proposal" process. Based on the numerous comments posted on this thread, there should be an opportunity for public participation early on in this possible (likely) redevelopment plan.
Posted on: 2006/11/14 19:07
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New York magazine article on downtown Jersey City
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
There is nothing in the definition of a bribe that states that a bribe is illegal, from Merriam-Webster Online -
1 : money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust 2 : something that serves to induce or influence It is up to a legislative body or perhaps a public initiative to make specific types of bribes illegal. Quote:
Posted on: 2006/11/14 3:17
|
|||
|
||||
|
New Redevelopment Plan comming for downtown???
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I noticed in the Jersey Reporter's coverage of last week's city council meeting a resolution either approving a blight study to be conducted or approving and accepting a blight study declaring the area in need of redevelopment for the area btwn Columubus and Newark bounded by Grove and Jersey Ave.
Since this was a resolution, it does not appear on Councilman Fulop's website (only ordinances) and City Council agendas are not placed on the city website (no surprise). At the last Harsimus Cove Assn meeting on October 18th, Councilman Fulop provided an update on a number of items he thought of interest to the neighborhood, but no mention of creating a redevelopment plan for this area. I have not noticed anything relevant to this on Planning Board agendas (which are emailed to neighborhood groups and posted on the city website). There has been talk of streetscape improvements, blockfront improvements, changing zoning to permit the buildings on the south side of Newark Ave to split and have storefronts on Columbus, even suggestions to turn Newark Ave into a pedestrian mall, but nothing of completly rezoning the area and potentially using eminent domain to take properties here. While, many wish for improvement in this area, redevelopment plans irrevocably rezone/upzone areas, grant the city right of emminent domain to achieve the plan, open up redevelopment to tax abatements / pilot contracts etc. There are numerous business that have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in their storefronts (including the long awaited Thai restaurant), now a redevelopment plan can shut them down and take it away from them. Something of this magnatude should have gone public before the redevelopment process is started and involved all stakeholders. Given all this, is anyone in the know about what is being planned?????
Posted on: 2006/11/14 3:12
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: RENOVATION RESISTANCE
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Unfortunately in both cities, developers can and do make campaign contributions to the very elected officials that approve and upzone their projects and tax agreements, worse the elected officials accept these "legal" bribes, fail to recuse themselves from discussions and votes and then try to say they are acting in the public interest.....
These development decisions involve irrevocable upzoning and billions of dollars in development. Lets not just yell and scream about the small transgressions, but realize that there are major issues that anyone serious about reform must get behind.
Posted on: 2006/11/13 19:42
|
|||
|
||||
|
Oviedo in the news
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Apparently, Jersey City has more in common with one of our sister city's Oviedo, Spain than we thought.
Jersey City will market the arts district without artists and Oviedo promotes bogus medieval Jewish landmarks. See todays NY Times article - With Jewish Roots Now Prized, Spain Starts Digging ...But Mr. Casta?o and other scholars say the revival has in some ways gone too far. They contend that some local governments, eager to attract well-heeled tourists from the United States and Israel, are making claims about their Jewish heritage that are not supported by historical evidence. ?This whole revival is a very important and positive contribution,? Mr. Casta?o said. ?The problem is that in some cases people are falsifying the past by creating a Jewish patrimony that never existed.? He and other critics say cities are promoting old Jewish quarters with no original structures, cemeteries whose real location is still a mystery and medieval synagogues that are hardly medieval if they ever functioned as synagogues at all. ?History is being exploited,? Mr. Casta?o said, citing Oviedo near the northern coast and Ja?n in the south as particularly egregious examples. ?People are trying to reproduce what has occurred in Toledo. Everyone wants their medieval synagogue.?...
Posted on: 2006/11/6 1:14
|
|||
|
||||