I'm very happy with iTrans PATH. It's well-designed and doesn't require signal or wifi to give schedule information.

Good news that Engineering isn't going to eliminate parking and implement the 3-lane plan.

We will have to stay on top of this issue if it comes up again. I have done a lot of research, and I never found when that plan was authorized -- only references to the plan being a done deal.

We'll need to be vigilant.

Quote:

I completely agree with you on JCIA. JCIA is an example of the old-school Tammany Hall system. I certainly would not advocate putting more of our services into non-transparent authorities that are filled with cronyism. JCIA should be merged into DPW, not the other way around, and JCIA should be eliminated.

Civil service reform shouldn't mean privatization. It should mean enhancing accountability. And you have less accountability with privatization. I don't think the author of the op-ed was advocating privatization. I know I'm not.

But here's a different example -- the school superintendent, Dr. Epps. His feather-bed contract required that he get a full year's notice of termination. Is that an example of a smart way to run a civil service? No, that was just dumb. And the New Jersey state laws that protect school superintendents to such an extent are examples of problems we now have built into our civil service systems. We should try to fix those problems.

This op-ed piece by the deputy mayor of NYC appeared in the paper today. The title sounds harsh at first, but give it a read. This is the most sensible thing I've read lately about municipal governments, pensions, and unions.


Progressive Government Is Obsolete
The rule-based civil service was a step forward from Tammany Hall. But today's regulations stifle government workers at a time when getting value for tax dollars is more important than ever.

By STEPHEN GOLDSMITH
Across the country, the interests of organized labor, elected officials and taxpayers are colliding over wages, work rules and the astronomical costs of retiree pensions and health care. As important as these specific issues are to resolve, there is another, more fundamental problem causing so many Americans to lose faith in their government: It is not government unions per se but progressive government itself?long celebrated in Wisconsin, New York and elsewhere?that no longer produces progressive results.

In the early 20th century, the progressives championed a rule-based approach to public-sector management that was a big step forward from the cronyism and corruption of Tammany Hall. Today, however, the very rules that once enhanced accountability, transparency and efficiency now stifle the creativity of public-sector workers and reduce the ability of public investments to create opportunities for citizens?outcomes precisely the opposite of those intended by Progressive Era reformers.

New York City has more than 300,000 employees who work under more than 100 collective-bargaining agreements, along with layers of bureaucratic state civil-service laws. State law mandates that over 1,500 job titles must be filled through competitive written exams, specifically ignoring an employee's actual performance or qualifications. We are even required to administer a civil-service test for the head of our Police Department's counterterrorism unit! (We found a way around it.)

Seniority rules require that layoffs are based on date of hire, not merit. These rules also prevent any significant rewards for outstanding performance and make dismissing bad apples in the Big Apple all but impossible. Even asking employees for their ideas can be against the rules.

No one wants a return to the bad old days when public employees feared arbitrary dismissals. Today, however, the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction. Rather than too few rules governing public employees, there are far too many, and they hurt the very people progressive reformers cared most about: the least fortunate members of society who depend the most on effective support services.

A hundred years ago, progressives envisioned a highly professional public-sector work force reining in exploitative corporate interests. They saw those on the margin being victimized both by corrupt government and business interests. They believed that the worst abuses of capitalism?think Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle"?would be reined in by government regulation.

Ironically, today we find that in many cases special interests are working in the bureaucracy, using Progressive Era rules to protect the status quo and themselves.

Recent efforts to trim approximately 150 laborers, carpenters and electricians from city hospitals, for example, were halted by a lawsuit brought by the unions. In a city facing a multibillion-dollar deficit, every nonessential dollar spent is a dollar less available for hospital care?or shelter for the homeless, or police for troubled neighborhoods. In a word, these special- interest interventions ultimately lead to socially regressive results.

For cities to survive, we need a post-progressive approach in which the efficient creation of the common good is the shared goal of labor, management and citizens alike. This means rethinking the rules of the early 20th century in light of the realities of the 21st century. A system that hires without discretion, promotes without considering performance, and lays off teachers without regard to merit cannot truly serve its citizens.

Progressive Era reformers rightly targeted corruption among Boss Tweed-type contracts for city work. Today, however, excruciating contracting rules produce unintended results.

Antiquated and overly complex procurement rules lead to year-long delays and waste millions of taxpayer dollars. These complex bureaucratic processes lock out small businesses and lock in existing contractors. Simpler, less prescriptive processes with greater transparency would produce better, faster and cheaper results, minimize political favoritism, increase competition among contractors, and improve the quality of work done on the taxpayer's dime.

The current systems punish taxpayers in other ways too. Unaffordable pensions imposed by state legislators on unsuspecting citizens have created an unsustainable burden. In fiscal year 2012, New York City will pay $8.4 billion from its operating budget to fill a hole in its unfunded pension obligations. An expense of this magnitude leads directly to budget cuts for social programs and education, and to higher taxes that squeeze working families' budgets and kill jobs.

Would an increase in the "progressivity" of the tax system be the way out of our budget woes? More and more, urban mayors understand the futility of trying to tax their cities into prosperity. Few would dispute the fairness of a progressive tax system?but there are limits. In New York City, the highest-earning 1% of tax filers pay approximately 50% of the city's income taxes. Those paying the most are also best-positioned to relocate.

We need a new approach to governance that includes more respect not only for students in need of high-quality education but also for taxpayers, that has less job-killing red tape, and that fosters a more productive work force. The first rule of city government should be an unwavering commitment to delivering real value to the public with every tax dollar. That would be real progress.


Mr. Goldsmith is the deputy mayor of New York City.
Copyright 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

+1 for Jack Pereira. His number is (908) 419-1628.

Quote:

We really would have to look at the contracts. They probably only say something like "health benefits of the same and type then offered to current employees" or something similarly flexible. They probably do NOT recite the specific terms, such as amount of deductible, amount of co-pay, etc. And the contracts probably say the employer reserves the right to change insurers and terms.

And if that's the case, a change from a "traditional" "Cadillac" plan -- where the patient can go to any doctor, with no limits and no co-pays -- to the use of an in-network provider system with reasonable deductibles and reasonable co-pays would be totally appropriate without breaching any contract.

We need more details.

Brewster: Well said. Sad but very well said. Any politician with an ounce of integrity must realize that this political system of self-serving patronage is municipal suicide. Any sensible taxpayer will either move to a suburb or even NYC. Property taxes in Brooklyn are far less than here. And then who will be left to pay the dole to the thieves.

Mayor Healey and members of city council: Is that what you want? Shame on you.

Here is a link to a much more detailed presentation on the project, although definitely from the perspective of Hoboken. Page 15 shows 23 acres in JC. Also look at pages 32-24 for interesting data on building heights.

Here's a link to the redevelopment plan.

And here's a link to the redevelopment study.

I haven't been able to find equivalent studies or plans for the JC portion of the site.

It's outrageous that his contract required giving notice a full year before the current term is over. Sixty or 90 days' notice would be appropriate. The BOE should refuse to renew now, conduct the search, and if they can't find a better candidate, or if Epps improves, they can always choose to offer a renewal in April 2011. Meanwhile, Epps can treat the BOE action as non-renewal so he is free to go get a job elsewhere in June 2011.

And I'm sick about the sick day provisions. Being able to cash in 493 accumulated sick days is absurd. Sick days should be use-it-or-lose-it.

These municipal contracts are going to drive this city to bankruptcy. This has to stop now.

I really like my Jersey City Powerhouse T-shirt.

And here's other stuff with the same photo.

I find the chicken kabob to be a leaner alternative to the chicken shwarma. It takes longer to prepare, but it's worth the wait.

Quote:

This is a great idea! (Although perhaps cut it back to 1 hour.) Anyone making the exit from the Turnpike at 14C or CCD, and then immediately going into the Tunnel, is clearly using local streets for a shortcut.

It's hard to refute the logic of this idea.

I don't think the idea of increased tolls at these exits would work. The problem is that the tolls would punish people who legitimately are commuting to work on the JC waterfront, or who live in JC but happen to be exiting the Turnpike in those hours. All we really want to deter is the shortcutters exiting the Turnpike and then re-entering at the tunnel.

I also like the cobblestone idea, so long as the bike path is smooth asphalt.

The 8 benches are gone. This was a bad move. I am really dismayed.

I've never found any proposed plans for the Columbus Drive widening project. The closest that I found was a reference in the Jersey City Waterfront Access and Downtown Circulation Study dated 2007. Click on "Executive Summary" and go to section 4.2. It makes reference to the widening of Columbus Drive as something already approved. But I cannot find anything with more detail. And I don't know who approved it, and when.

Does anyone remember this issue being publicly heard and approved before 2007? I don't.

Even so, the world has changed in the past few years. The financial crisis has seriously constrained the pace of development. Our local political climate is changing. Now is the perfect opportunity to rethink a bad decision.

With more transparency this time.

Steve Fulop may very well tell us that it's a done deal because the city council approved the project a long time ago. But it was a poor decision then, and proceeding with it is a poor decision now.

This is an opportunity to make Columbus Drive more of a boulevard -- like Montgomery between Marin and the river -- and less like Grand. There should be parking, two lanes of traffic in each direction, and a median with trees.

Columbus Drive suffers because it used to be Railroad Avenue, with elevated trains. That's why there are few nice buildings facing Columbus west of Grove. We shouldn't accentuate that historical fact by making Columbus more of a highway. We should seek to transform Columbus by making it a pleasant place for pedestrians and bikes.

Ian is right -- there is no traffic flow data available because no traffic studies were done. There is no demonstrated need for this project. There never has been. All you have to do is sit for an hour at Wonder Bagel and watch the traffic on a weekday morning. Columbus doesn't need widening. Columbus needs to be a more pleasant street.

One more thing: Moving the taxi stand from Columbus to Grove will require taking away the short-term parking meters on Grove. That won't be good for the businesses there. And we can't help this city thrive if we do that.

True leadership includes the willingness to take a fresh look at old decisions. Steve, be brave.

The information at 90013th's link is helpful but doesn't yet answer these questions:

1. If the $102 million is mandated by the state, why is it even on the ballot?
2. And then what happens if the voters say no?

There is more budget info for JC on the NJ state dept. of education website here and here, but I wasn't able to reconcile the state aid numbers with the numbers on the ballot.

Then I tried the Jersey City Board of Ed website and eventually found numbers that correspond to a $618 million budget with $102 million to be raised by tax. The budget info is buried deep on the website. Navigate to Administration, then Public Board Documents, then Meetings, then 3/18/2010 Regular Meeting, then to Item 10 (Finance), then to Item 10.22. (Sorry, can't link directly there.)

But it still doesn't answer these questions. If mandatory, why do we vote on it? How do the numbers correspond to what is on the state aid website? And what happens if we vote no?

The ballot has a place to vote yes or no on the $618 million budget. What happens to the budget if the vote is no? Will the new board then develop a new budget?

I'd like to hear what the candidates recommend -- should we vote no and send the budget back?

Thanks.

Quote:

Is the proposal to remove all 8 benches along the front of the park? That's most of the benches in the entire park. Removing all of those benches would be too much.

I'm a resident of the street too, and I see neighborhood people sitting on those benches all the time in the summer months. Sometimes the hydrant is open and kids are playing in the water, and the moms are sitting on the benches.

I don't know who came up with the idea, but the details are here at post #259. Also I got an email about it yesterday from the Downtown City Watch.

There is now a proposal to remove the benches from the front of the Angel Ramos playground on Wayne Street, across from the Barrow Mansion. I'm sure it's a well-intended proposal, but I think it's a bad idea. Here's why:

1. Getting rid of benches will not make drug dealers go away. If other conditions are unchanged, they'll just sit on the stoops next door.

2. Instead, we need to address the factors that currently make the space attractive to drug dealers:
-- Better lighting (already done; let's keep it up);
-- More police presence (somewhat better now due to recent arrests);
-- More of a sense that the neighbors are watching (improving, thanks to the terrific Downtown City Watch and the Wayne Street Watch);
-- Better police responsiveness to neighborhood watch calls.

3. Getting rid of benches is conceding defeat. Park benches are amenities that make our city more pleasant. It's a nice place. On summer evenings our neighbors often sit there while their kids play. It's a pleasant spot on a hot day. If you take away those benches, you hurt everyone in the neighborhood. It's like saying, "We can't have nice things, so let's take the nice things away."

4. I also think the bench removal can backfire. If the innocent neighbors with kids don't have a place to sit, it again makes the space even more attractive for illicit activity.

Seating really is not the issue. It's the perception that it is a dark, unwatched space that police leave alone.

The vote is Tues. 11/17 at 7:30 pm at the VVPA meeting in Barrow Mansion. I plan to vote no.

I'm very impressed by Irene Asbury. She's smart and sensible. She got my vote today.

It's a very cool skeleton. BTW they finally replaced the burnt-out light in the back of the playground. Now the park is a lot less spooky.

That sounds great. You'll need foot traffic, so you'll probably get a lot of customers from Liberty Harbor North and not so many from those who don't go that way walking home from the Grove Street PATH. But if you stay open past 9 p.m., I would walk over there. (Lee's on Grove St. and the grocer on Newark Ave. both close up at 9, which is inconvenient.)

Good luck.

Quote:

Last year when Fulop tried to get the referendum on the ballot regarding dual office holding, he submitted petitions with signatures of 10% of the number who voted in the previous election, not 10% of the number of registered voters as of the date of the previous election. Here's a news story about it. That's why it didn't get on the ballot.

Quote:

It looks to me like JC Official 1 is Edward Cheatam, and JC Official 2 is Maher Khalil.

The Manzo complaint says "There was an individual who served as the Vice President of the Jersey City Board of Education (until on or about May 2009), and a commissioner of the Jersey City Housing Authority ("JC Official 1").

The Cheatam complaint says "At times relevant to this Complaint, defendant Edward Cheatam ("defendant Cheatam") was the affirmative action officer for Hudson County and a Commissioner on the Jersey City Housing Authority (the "JCHA"). ... Until in or about May, 2009, defendant Cheatam served as the Vice President of the Jersey City Board of Education ("BOE) ...."

That's a match for Cheatam as #1.

The Manzo complaint also says "There was an individual who represented himself to be an employee of the Jersey City Department of Health and Human Services and the Jersey City Zoning Board ("JC Official 2").

And the Khalil complaint says "At times relevant to this Complaint, defendant Maher A. Khalil (hereinafter, "defendant Khalil") served as an Assistant Director with the Jersey City, New Jersey Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS"). In addition, defendant Khalil was an official with the Jersey City Zoning Board of Adjustment (the "Zoning Board") through in or about March 2008."

So that's a match for Khalil as #2. Khalil's role is also explained on page 6 of the DOJ Press Release yesterday.

Steve Fulop just sent out the following email. He's right -- we need structural reform to reduce the financial incentives for corruption. These reforms alone cannot solve the problem of corruption, but at least we can begin to create a system of government that doesn't create incentives likely to facilitate corruption. Pay to play and dual holding are the right places to start.




From: Steven Fulop [mailto:info@stevenfulop.com]
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 12:10 PM
Subject: Yesterday's Arrests in Hudson County


Friends,

Yesterday was truly a low point for Jersey City. Seven high-ranking members of the Mayor Healy?s administration, including City Council President Mariano Vega and Deputy Mayor Leona Beldini, were arrested by Federal agents and charged with public corruption. These arrests were made as part of an even larger investigation, and more charges may be filed as it develops.

This is a sad day for Jersey City. We should have pride in our city, not be embarrassed by the conduct of our city?s leadership. Just this morning, a major news channels started their broadcast by describing that they were reporting from Jersey City as ?the epicenter of corruption."
While the individuals named in today?s indictments deserve their day in court, the sheer scale and widespread nature of these allegations is nothing short of outrageous. The conduct alleged describes not just the conduct of a few individuals, but a pervasive culture of corruption that infects our political system at every level.

This system must change.

As the only elected official in Jersey City who has never run as part of the old-guard political machine, I can tell you first hand that this culture of corruption serves as a back door tax on all citizens. It has become a part of the well-known cost of doing business in our city, draining our pocketbooks and degrading our quality of life.

Ultimately, it is not enough to remove corrupt individuals from public service. We must remove the financial incentives within our system that enable this type of conduct to persist. That is why I sponsored legislation in 2007 aimed at ending such obviously ethically-challenged practices as pay to play and double-dipping. Today?s events show all too clearly why I was the only member of the city council who voted in favor of such reforms.
While today is a black eye for the city, I am hopeful that the actions of the FBI and the U.S. Attorney?s office will serve as a first step in what will undoubtedly be a long road toward honest and open government.

I will continue to speak up against corruption and unfair practices, even when mine is the only voice within the city government willing to do so. In that regard, I am troubled that Mayor Healy has stopped at merely suspending the individuals involved. A cloud of suspicion will hang over every vote and decision these individuals make, and there are too many pressing issues our city must address. We cannot continually question the motivation behind each of their decisions.

I am therefore publicly calling upon the councilman and deputy mayor who were indicted yesterday to resign their appointed and elected positions immediately. My stance was published in this article in yesterday's Jersey Journal , which I encourage you to read. Furthermore, I will be introducing a resolution to the city council at our next meeting, Wednesday, July 29 that formally requests that Mayor Healy amend his executive order regarding the closed - door abatement negotiation committee to which Healy appointed Mariano Vega as chairperson.

In addition, I believe it is crucial that a formal review of Council activities be performed to see what city business may have been impacted by public corruption. Individuals and businesses that engage in bribery should not be allowed to benefit at everyone else?s expense. We must send a clear message that corruption will not be tolerated in Jersey City.

I assure you that the arrogance and selfishness of a few will not be allowed to ruin the good works and progress of our city. On that you have my word.


Sincerely,

Councilman Steven Fulop

Frank's Piano moving did a great job for me.

OK, I just got my absentee ballot. There is a public question to be voted on: Yes or No: "RESOLVED, that there should be raised for General Funds $93 million for the ensuing School Year."

That's a vague question. I suppose what it really is asking is whether I approve raising $93 million in additional property taxes, right?

If I vote no, is that a protest vote against the waste in the budget? If I vote yes, am I endorsing the full budget? Or is the vote meaningless because the state will impose the budget on the city anyway?

I'm not asking for more comments on property tax vs. PILOT, reval vs. no reval. What actually happens if the Public Question is voted down?

What do the candidates actually have to say on this Public Question? The only candidates I ever heard comment publicly on any issue were those interviewed on Mia Scanga's television program. And I don't recall anyone speaking on this issue.

I'm trying to be an educated voter. Suggestions appreciated.

I just got mail from Verizon saying that FIOS is now available on Wayne Street downtown. I called for details. The triple play is $95 / month and includes internet at 10/2 speed (10 Mbps download, 2 mbps upload). They can double the speed for $5 / month upgrade.

For the TV, you also have to rent the controller box. $10 / month for an HD box, $16 / month for HD box with a DVR, and $20 / month for HD box with a DVR that can play back on a second TV.

Good news! Especially if it has its own parking so that it doesn't cause a net decrease of street parking availability.

I hope Columbus Corners happens eventually too.