brewster wrote:
Quote:

terrencemcd wrote:
Hoboken, though, has two separate races: one year mayor and at-large council, another year ward council.

Any observations on how that affects the races or the government? Does it tend to be less "winner take all" where a Mayor tends to have a council of yes-men voted in with him? There does seem to be more combat in the Hoboken city hall, but some of that wasn't thoughtful opposition but opposition for it's own sake.

JPhurst wrote:
I would like to know what the results of this have been in cities that have made the change. Because there are several that have since the NJ legislature amended the law. Has voter turnout increased? What were the savings? Have there been any reports of ballot confusion? Have candidates that were placed on the ballot below the dominant party line received a higher share of the vote (as was the case in the 2013 school board elections in Jersey City)?

The arguments by most people for or against have been reasonable points but they are being made in a vacuum. Yet we have at least a few years of experience with this in other cities.

third_street_hats wrote:
So the Journal can't even generate its own opinion pieces?

OneSkirt wrote:

Terrence, would this switch also move the county elections too?

LimpiarElSucio wrote:


I'm also convinced that moving the election DOES NOT provide a fallback plan for our Mayor. Fulop would have to submit his petitions for the mayoral race prior to the gubernatorial primary, if that happened Sweeney and Murphy would have a field day and it could wreck Fulop's chances for the primary (while his gubernatorial run would hurt his chances in the mayoral).

Frinjc wrote:
Hi all, is there a google map of the murals somewhere? I missed the artist studio tour...

neverleft wrote:

Also does anyone have a copy of the wording of the ballot question that Healy/ Matsikoudis is taking a hissy fit over?

OneSkirt wrote:
Good interview, Terrence!

http://www.wnyc.org/story/jim-mcgreev ... enefits-four-months-work/

Yvonne wrote:
And they did not add in vacant properties.

Yvonne wrote:
If they were already in the Redevelopment Agency, they why was it necessary to transfer them again to the JCRA?

Yvonne wrote:
...the loan officer will do a search on the property and discover their property is in the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency and no bank will give a loan if someone else has rights to your property.

Yvonne wrote:
Since the ordinance passed they are somewhat in a bind until this is fixed.

Monroe wrote:


The issue seems to be that Strother didn't take appropriate action after he learned of the issue.

caj11 wrote:


Why is McKnight allowed to hold a non-elected public position? He's convicted felon! That alone should disqualify him for the job he's in now.

Monroe wrote:
Other than getting fired from his no-show job has he been charged with, say, theft of services? And is there an investigation into how he kept this no-show job for so long?

kencares wrote:
Any updates on Chico's drunk driving and corruption escapades?

Bamb00zle wrote:
The Jersey Journal headline for the story changed during the day, catching my eye. This morning it read: ?Arrests at Jersey City agency in apparent corruption probe?. By afternoon it was all kudos to our super-Mayor, corruption fighter extraordinaire: ?Fulop alleges waste-for-cash scheme at Jersey City agency.?

Vigilante wrote:


Yeah, don't worry. We'll figure out whether it was you or your bosses being hypocritical.

JCGuys wrote:

Some unsolicited advice.. Don't give much weight to feedback received here. This is a dammed if you do and dammed if you don't crowd, as they say. No one here will ever be happy. On a site note, I do appreciate your articles for JJ, especially on development topics.

bodhipooh wrote:


To Terrence: I didn't intend to pick on you, or your reporting. As others have mentioned, your articles are among the best at the JJ. I was just pointing out what seemed like a hypocritical application of the policy regarding race or skin color when reporting the news.

Adonis wrote:

That's just a cop out from answering the question posed about any official or unofficial policy regarding the publishing of a person's race in JJ articles. While yes it may in fact be the responsibility of the editors to determine what gets published they surely provide feedback to you from time to time so that they have to make fewer edits in the future. What does that feedback indicate when it comes to the posed policy question vis-?-vis race reporting.

JCMan8 wrote:


Understood. Also, please don't take my comments the wrong way. For what it's worth I think you are the best reporter at the JJ.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

terrencemcd wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:


Terrence, does the JJ have a written policy regarding when they will mention a criminal suspect's race? You seem to be implying when there is a picture of the suspect, the article will say it. As others have mentioned, this doesn't seem accurate. But if that is your stated policy then I assume we will have consistency.

For consistency's sake I removed that he is white. I presume this will end the controversy here.

I can only speak for myself, but I did not care that you said he was white. I think the reason you are seeing this reaction is that folks simply want to see a stated policy that is consistently and evenly applied.

In other words, no double standards.

Again, speaking for myself, l would prefer that race always be mentioned if available. This is how it's always been done and I see no reason not to include it if available. Plus it would help to identify and catch the suspect in the admittedly small chance someone spots him.

But applying the same standard to everyone is what's fair.

JCMan8 wrote:


Terrence, does the JJ have a written policy regarding when they will mention a criminal suspect's race? You seem to be implying when there is a picture of the suspect, the article will say it. As others have mentioned, this doesn't seem accurate. But if that is your stated policy then I assume we will have consistency.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

GrovePath wrote:
Quote:

The alleged vandal is a white male with a thin build, dark hair and a beard. .

I thought the Jersey Journal does not mention/guess race.

This is the PERFECT encapsulation of PC run amok: the Jersey Journal will go out of their way to avoid stating the race or skin color of a criminal that happens to be a minority or non-white, but don't use the same standard/restraint when it comes to someone who happens to be white. Hypocrisy at its finest.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Given that Fulop in the past hasn't hesitated to ask for resignations, in one case of an accused City Council President, it makes you wonder what Chico may have on him that's keeping him on the sidelines.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... fficial.html#incart_river

Great article. It's nice to see a reporter with memory who will hold those in power accountable.

I particularly liked this bit of hypocrisy from Fulop:

"Mariano is entitled to his day in court but every single vote he makes going forward is tainted," Fulop said.

Oh, and if Terrence reads this, in the section about Maria Maio the quote should be "no faith."

Monroe wrote:
Has Fulop commented on any of Councilman Chico's drunk driving/using a JCIA car illegally/no show job?

I imagine Jennifer is writing up something right now.

donnajc65 wrote:
I have no idea what the Councilman Borgiano is talking about, did he even look at the website. Its an ?as of right? project Rich!! They even define ?as of right? for you Rich. Read it. They spell it out for you; they followed the Journal Square plan.

JCMan8 wrote:
The only reason she's getting all this attention, and a rambling crazy homeless person is not, is because this reporter chose to write several articles about her.