Good question FAB... because of the lack of reporting on the committee's operations we don't know whether its members are paid for their participation or not.

Earl Morgan's article highlights one of the major deficiencies in the abatement process -- the composition of those who sit on the committee itself.

The city is a corporation, and no committee in a well run corporation these days should be dominated by insiders. This committee is composed nearly in its entirety of insiders. What type of quality decision making can result from what appears to be a rubber stamp process?

If the city were serious about improving the quality of decision making as to abatements, it would ensure that the committee would be comprised of at least 50% independent members. In other words, independent members who do not work for the city, the county and who are not related to anyone who does.

If a truly representative committee included a diverse group of independents from all Jersey City's Wards districts, then there might be a fighting chance to focus on issues relating to affordable housing and other reasonable contractual conditionalities, which could become part of the abatement discussion process and incorporated into a binding agreement with developers.

A second major deficiency is a total lack of transparency and regular public disclosure as to the operations of the committee.

There should at a minimum, be detailed public annual reports of the work of committee and a meaningful summary compilation of the terms and conditions of abatements approved (including a voting record), so they can be assessed and analyzed to determine whether the benefits of abatements truly outweigh the negatives. There should also be a summary report detailing the payment status of granted abatements and whether developers granted abatements are actually current in payments and keeping their agreements.

Just some food for thought.

All the best.

G

PM... That's a possibility that makes sense... certainly location wise it's potentially the least noxious to the NIMFY crowd, and could reasonably be an easy to accomplish tweak after the fact if D becomes the desired choice... certainly little cost involved.

If you can't measure performance, there is no way you can manage it.

The basic challenge of the JC BoE is holding the system, its managers, and the BoE itself, accountable for the performance they deliver or fail to deliver -- qualitatively and financially.

Without an effective system to measure performance of the school system and performance of its board (collectively and individually) against objectively established criteria, and regular report cards (a radical notion here) of performance against the criteria, publicly disclosed, there can be no accountability. (What I'm suggesting here goes far beyond the standardized performance tests students are already required to take.)

The use of performance measurement systems is standard fare in properly managed medium and large sized corporations and institutions. With a budget measured in the hundred of millions, not having such a system in place by the time full control reverts back to the JC BoE would be an omission of the greatest proportions. (Perhaps the same statement can be made also with respect to the administration of Jersey City, as well.)

All the best.

G

Who gets to sit on the BoE in the coming years is going to become far more important as control reverts back to the City. The BoE will wield increasing power over an annual budget, which far outstrips the City's own budget by significant millions. A thought to ponder remains:

Will there be sufficient governance procedures in place to protect against a back slide into the old Jersey City "business-as-usual" style, which brought on state control in the first place?

Sorry Dan_L but you've struck out with your post.

You're entitled to your personal opinion, but you've stooped to unnecessary hyperbole and a frankly unfair (and inaccurate) comment about Hamilton Park being paved over.

It's one thing to dislike the city's approach to handling redevelopment plan processes (which leaves much to be desired), but the entire park redesign process for Hamilton Park has been one of the most open and transparent I've experienced since I moved to JC in 1983.

(I would have expected such comments from a few others in the HP environs who don't mind intentionally distorting reality, but you should know better as the President of Civic JC.)

All the best.

Geoff

I'll say this as simply as possible.

The HPNA survey results reflected an overwhelming number in favor of keeping the basketball court.

As a personal observer (along with many others) of the voting process conducted by the HPNA, the "under 18" age group was not disproportionately represented in any one of the five surveys conducted, nor did they vote in great numbers generally speaking -- especially for the vote regarding the basketball court.

No trickery here; no silent majority. Like our local municipal elections, those who came out to vote, did; those who didn't, didn't.

A final note. The HPNA has had no monopoly on conducting surveys. There has been more than ample opportunity during the past 2+ years for any other group or persons with a professed strong interest in the park to conduct their own surveys. The stark fact remains that no one else did.

Councilman Fulop, the City and it's chosen architects have provided many subsequent opportunities for additional community input, and for conducting a most open and transparent process. They should be commended for this.

It's time to bring closure to this stage of the process and move on to vote on the final plans next month.

Let's get the Hamilton Park reconstruction process underway as soon as possible.

'nuff said...

The following is a reprinted Letter to the Editor from Hugh Harrison, which appeared recently in the Jersey City Reporter.

=======================================
Dear Editor:

Now that we are entering the Christmas season, many of us remember the people who in the past helped establish The Hamilton Park Neighborhood Association in the 1970s. Many young people now living in the area are unaware of the original roots and events which are now taken for granted.

As someone who arrived in 1980 when the area was changing from an older to a newer type of community, I appreciate the efforts of many who helped improve Hamilton Park and keep an eye on safety, developments and historic integrity.

Jack Swallow was one of those people. He moved to the neighborhood in the 1970s and immediately became an enthusiastic supporter of Hamilton Park and the surrounding community. After his cruel murder in the early '80s, the HPNA and his friends planted the evergreen conifer at the corner of 8th Street and West Hamilton Place.

There are several trees planted in the park to memorialize members of the community, but this one was the first. For more than 24 years, the tree has stood as both a memoriam and a gift to the community. However, many of us have always considered it "Jack's tree" and not just a Christmas tree. To us it represents and always will represent the very best of the good will and neighborhood unity that helped revitalize a neighborhood in its early days.

The tree was lit annually at Christmas through the generosity of Audrey Snitken and Joan Moore (until family health problems prevented them from continuing the tradition) and with the help of the late Arthur Pugh. As the lights are turned on again for Christmas 2006, we, as neighbors and as friends should take a moment to reflect on the enduring beauty of its symbolism.

Sincerely,

Hugh Harrison

The answer to the question is, "Yes, tax abatements negotiated with the city can be extended."

An additional question best put to the City Clerk relates to what constitutes legally adequate notice. Unfortunately, it's probably legally sufficient to only provide the block and/or lot number of the affected property.

That being said, the city seems perfectly capable of adding parenthetical (aka or also known as) descriptions identifying the full street address(es) associated with the Block and Lot numbers -- see agenda items (a) and (h).

The simple conclusion to be drawn is that the city simply chooses not to draw attention to particular items by not providing full descriptions.

As a matter of best practice and transparency, all agenda items affecting real property should also include the street address whether or not it's legally required. This sounds like it could easily be addressed by an administrative resolution of the city counsel to change this practice.

Bobblehead actually is quite technically correct when it comes to pension system terminology.

The term often used to describe defined benefit plans such as social security is a "pay as you go" or PAYGO. The real problem is that social security has had so many other defined benefits added to it over the years (unrelated directly to retirement), it's bleeding the system.

As for terminology see more below..................

Terms Behind Pensions Discussion

There are several ways to create and manage pensions plans. Here's the basic breakdown.

Multi-pillar Pension System

There are five components or pillars:

0 Pillar: Social assistance schemes, where money is taken from the general revenue to help ensure that the neediest of the elderly don't fall into poverty.

1st Pillar: Earnings-related. These plans tend to be defined benefit, unfunded schemes, such as pay-as-you-go plans.

2nd Pillar: Mandatory savings. These plans are usually fully funded, defined contribution plans.

3rd Pillar: Occupational plans, where the company sets up a saving plan, usually a funded, defined contribution scheme, for its employees.

4th Pillar: Personal, voluntary plans where an individual sets up a private savings account to put aside additional money. There may be tax benefits associated with it.

5th Pillar: Family plan, where a pension is paid to surviving non-working family members.


=====================================


Defined benefit versus defined contribution

1. Defined benefit: the promise the government gives a worker of how much his or her pension will be, usually determined as a percentage of the last wage.

2. Defined contribution: the percentage of each paycheck that a worker is required to put aside in a pension plan, which is usually mandated by the government. The worker's money is put in an account where it accrues interest until the worker retires.

Financing methods

1. Unfunded or partially funded plans: accumulated assets do not cover liabilities. Defined benefit plans tend to be unfunded. Pay-as-you-go plans (PAYG) fall in this category. In PAYG plans, today's pensions are covered by the wages of the current workforce.

2. Fully funded plans: accumulated assets are equal to liabilities. Defined contribution plans tend to be fully funded. Private mandatory savings fall in this category.

Pension Fund Management

1. The government can manage pension funds directly.

2. The government can contract out the management to private companies.

There is a lot of variation within. For example, In some Latin American countries, the government mandates the amount of money to be saved, but the worker is left to select a pension fund on his own.

Most of the pension plans in the world tend to be government pension plans (partially funded or unfunded defined benefit schemes.) Since Chile introduced a fully funded, privately managed defined contribution scheme in 1981, some two dozens countries have converted a portion of their pension system to this arrangement.

I second Brewster's comments.

Nothing has been hidden or distorted as to the process or results. Quite to the contrary, it's all been out in the open and transparent in the extreme -- with every comment meticulously recorded.

The HPNA Park Renovation Report can be found at: http://www.hamiltonpark.org/PDFS/HP_R ... tion_Community_Report.pdf

People are free to positively express their personal opinions about what ever they might wish to see in the park, but not at the expense of other points of view. Denigrating an acknowledged job well-done, is shameful and I'm sorry to see it again on display in Hamilton Park or this forum.

I personally think that no organization owns the park -- neither the HPNA, nor the Friends of Hamilton Park, nor even the residents living on or around the Park. It is a city-wide resource. Use of Hamilton Park must include sorely needed active recreational uses, including, but not limited to basketball, tennis courts, volleyball, children's playground areas, dog runs and clean lawn, pet free-zones. There are needs larger than our own petty self interests to account for in the redesign of Hamilton Park.

Just my two cents as they say...

All the best.

Regardless of how you might characterize yourself... liberal or conservative, democrat or republican, maxist or capitalist, pro-Bush or anti-Bush... whatever...

... I am simply appalled and disgusted at the demonstrated lack of compassion and understanding reflected by the many posts on this thread. Where is your decency?

Jersey City is a diverse community; show some respect for those less fortunate than ourselves. Count your blessings that you have a decent roof over your heads and food on the table and leave the new residents of Hope VI in peace.

If you have ever spent some time walking through and inside what passes for public housing in Jersey City, you would probably be speechless. Finally, consider doing some research on your own. You will find that the Hope Program delivers significantly better quality, affordable housing for those in need, at no cost to the city, and at much less cost than the other failed programs of the past.

Have a peaceful evening.

The following fact pattern has occured with respect to enforcement of the Historic Preservation Ordinance against serious Historic Preservation violations.

*Selling owner undertook major changes / improvements known by Historic Preservation to be in violation of the code -- either unauthorized or not in accordance with previously granted approvals. (Typically in this pattern Historic Preservation and the seller have already been in contact about the violation.)

*Seller fails to disclose the above events to the purchaser.

*The Historic Preservation Office is unaware of the pending sale or actual sale.

*New purchaser receives notice of violation(s), which can be enforced against them, even though the old owner is the one who caused the violation, as the violations run against the current property owner.

Ouch!

If the seller is no longer resident within Jersey City, the HPO will not be able to legally reach the old owner, but are then left with the question of what to do with a serious violation. The answer is that their only option is to enforce against the new owner -- otherwise this would become a major loophole to avoid enforcement of the ordinance.

The above is not a particularly palatable result for the new homeowner, however, you have already taken the best preventative steps -- due diligence with the Historic Preservation Officer... and hopefully before you make your purchase or finalize your contract with the seller.

If the HPO becomes aware of the potential sale, this will provide them with the opportunity to issue a notice of violation against the seller if the seriousness of the violation warrants it. Otherwise, it could be addressed informally by the prospective purchaser in direct conversation with the HPO if less serious.

HOWEVER, if it is a potentially serious violation (not yet reduced to a notice of violation), then you can take the additional steps of making the required changes a subject of your purchase negotiations to cure the violation(s), to adjust the purchase price, and/or if necessary insert appropriate indemnification or escrow provisions into the contract, pending a resolution with the HPO or should the HPO notice violations against the new property owner at a later date.

The above fact pattern was the genesis of a recommendation made more than 5 years ago that all prospective purchasers be provided with a notice that the property they own is within an Historic District and providing disclosure of known violations in advance of the purchase.

Fortunately this doesn't occur often, but it can happen.

Hope this helps.

All the best.

Geoff

So what's your point?

I would suggest that you re-read carefully what was written -- it's hardly a gross mis-characterization, but a careful validation and dispassionate distillation of the many things that were said last night; some ideas and issues with great merit and others... well ....some not so well thought out -- as the gay bashing posts on this thread, which remains a purely vicious, vindictive and unnecessary personal attack.

A careful read demonstrates a clear acknowledgement there is a need to look more closely at how the law has been implemented and the alleged actions of the Historic Preservation Officer. Warren's correspondence makes this abundantly clear. Somehow, you missed my references, twice stated in paragraphs 3 and 8 relating to the need to address how the Historic Preservation ordinance can be "implemented more efficiently, more consistently, more fairly and more economically."

As to the words "arbitrary and capricious;" those were not my words; they were the words of another resident. Further, note my use of the word "some" as opposed to "all" -- there is a distinction and there is a difference.

With reference to the contribution of the "architect" you must have been at some other meeting because not only did he make a great point regarding "preservation" vs. "restoration," it was acknowledged as a great observation by me. Further, he was only person present to suggest amendments and changes to the legislation that was NOT commensurate with ill-advised dismembering of the Historic Preservation Ordinance.

The HPNA will craft a responsible and civil letter that will get to the core of the matter on the issues clearly identified last night and we will press for responsible change. You might not like what we say or how we say what it, but rest assured we are neither timid nor reluctant to deal with tough issues -- and there will be tangible change; but we will not become hyperbolic about the issue either.

A final note. Is there no one else here willing to come out from behind the veil of anonomity?

To be factually accurate - and speaking individually on my own behalf as one who was present at last night's meeting - the Hamilton Park Neighborhood Association passed out nothing related to Mr. Wrieden.

1. Mr. Warren Curtin distributed copies of various correspondence from himself and other residents of the Hamilton Park community.

2. The HPNA is not in a position to validate the accuracy of the claims and allegations contained in Mr. Curtin's correspondence, nor is it our reponsibility to do so -- and, as with all issues, there is always more than one side to the story. That being said, much of the content, assuming it is reasonably accurate, does raise issues which appear worthy of further review and discussion.

3. It is, however, inappropriate and unacceptable to overshadow otherwise valid comments and feedback on how to have our Historic Preservation Ordinance implemented more effectively, more consistently, more fairly and more economically with an unncessary and uncalled for exercise in gay bashing and witch hunting. (That's what this thread sounds like to me.)

4. Independent of Mr. Curtin's correspondence, other residents have raised similar concerns, which need to be heard at the top level of HEDC (Mr. Cotter) and with the members of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC).

5. Further, some comments were made about the various HPC commissioners and its operations, but when asked publicly during the meeting, none of the individuals present making these comments indicated that they have ever attended or appeared before the HPC itself.

6. From last night's comments, there appears to be much room for needed feedback and improvement in how the Historic Preservation Ordinance is applied and implemented. The City does need to hear this. Unfortunately, the remedies suggested by some of those frustrated with the process do not appear aimed at improvement or ensuring that the Historic Preservation Ordinance functions more effectively or fairly -- or even correcting perceived excesses. Instead, the real apparent focus is aimed at simply eliminating the position of the Historic Preservation Officer (not even replacing him), eliminating the HPC and gutting the oversight process. I don't believe this to be a constructive approach.

7. If there are valid issues raised in Mr. Curtin's correspondence as to how the Historic Preservation Officer might be implementing the law, these should be addressed and discussed publicly, fully and transparently in a venue where a complete picture can be assessed. As for the specific individual cases raised in Mr. Curtin's correspondence, it would be instructional to hear the City's response to each of the individual circumstances cited there.

8. A rational discussion resulting in recommendations for an improved all-around process, and an Historic Preservation Ordinance which can be implemented more efficiently, more consistently, more fairly and more economically would be a constructive approach to problem solving -- anonymous witchhunts and gay bashing is not.