Yvonne wrote:
Before I married my husband, we talked about our future children and who they might look like, I guess that is one conversation same sex couple will not have.

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

rescuelife wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
No surprise that our closeted Senator elect and JC mayor are out in front of this-why they aren't out in public is the question.

Booker I don't know, but this is very very funny if you actually knew Mayor Fulop in any personal capacity whatsoever.

I guess you're saying that he's openly gay to those around him, but hasn't come out to the voting public??

Monroe wrote:
No surprise that our closeted Senator elect and JC mayor are out in front of this-why they aren't out in public is the question.

Yvonne wrote:
So facts do not matter as long as "vindication" can vent rage. And I will say it again, I have never attended a tea party event, but our current mayor did appoint a tea party member to the board. By the way, I do not approve of the tea party holding Washington hostage but that would not fit into your diatribe of dinosaurs and the earth being flat.

Yvonne wrote:
I voted for Lonegan because he took follow Republican, Governor Christine Todd Whitman to court over bonding. Let me give you some details. State law requires NJ voters to approve any bonding on a ballot. Whitman created an authority and transferred to bonds to them. Naturally, that was done to avoid having the bonds on the ballot. Lonegan lost the lawsuit, but that is not surprising, judges are appointed by governors. This same tactic as been used by McGreevey. There is too much gridlock in Washington, I admire someone who will cross party lines on important issues. I would have voted for Booker if he was against someone else, but Lonegan deserves my vote for taking a Republican to court.

john1952 wrote:
Who care? Who cares who Councilman Boggiano endorses or Mayor Fulop endorses. What does that have to do with Jersey City. We did not vote for either of them because they were partisan. Its what they said they would do for us.

Yvonne wrote:
God Bless those founding Fathers! If you don't protect religion, then freedom of speech is next. You cannot pick and choose what part of the first amendment is important.

john1952 wrote:
It looks like we are heading to becoming a divided city. Those protected from property tax increases by owning tax abated properties and those that don't who are taxed conventionally subject to property tax increases.

Those protected from tax increases are more affluent and are asking for more services while the rest of us have little need for more services, but seek control of spending and taxes.

john1952 wrote:
If you are suggesting that downtown is built out because there is a rush of new residents taking advantage of the state funded FREE pre K that won't fly. Maybe they should pay their way instead. Families will not live in a SRO (did not think these met zoning regs.)

Now as to how this happened. How about asking the former Councilman for 8 years for starters. You can also ask Council President Lavarro who has been on the JCRA board for a while. The executive director is an employee. All actions were approved by the board and redevelopment plans by the city council. How about holding your former council person accountable (for a change.)

Honestly, I do not give a sh-t about this problem. If the executive director should go, so be it. Fulop is the mayor, but don't fill the position. Fulop said one of his deputy directors would work on development (to justify his high price tag.) He lied of course and hired a replacement for director of HEDC anyway. Now why can't his high paid deputy mayor do this job. What the f-ck will he do anyway?

Quote:

K-Lo wrote:
Right now, JRCA is trying to sell the lot across the stree from PS #3 to put up an 87 unit SRO building. The lot is the same size as the Rosina bulding on Wayne that has 12 units AND parking. None of the redevelopment plans specify the unit size. Wonder how THAT happened.....

Meanwhile, the school is already over crowded and is bussing 3 year olds to Bergen Lafayette because they can't take any more local children.

john1952 wrote:

The pot calling the kettle black.

Once the redevelopmen authority puts the property into the private hands, the plans are approved by the city council, for all of those failures Fulop should take some responsibility himself. What a croc. He should also be specific if accusing someone of ethics violations. That said I'd be happy if he does not replace Antonicello and we could save the salary but that is a big if, since he will likely replace him with his own do nothing hack. Funny how a guy that looks like he works really hard surrounds himself with the usual suspects.



Quote:

terrencemcd wrote:
Jersey City mayor demands resignation of JCRA chief

By Terrence T. McDonald/The Jersey Journal

Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop today demanded the resignation of the director of the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency, accusing the agency chief of making ?unethical and imprudent business decisions.?

In a terse letter to JCRA Executive Director Bob Antonicello, obtained this afternoon by The Jersey Journal, Fulop says Antonicello hasn?t submitted a financial disclosure form required of city directors; is responsible for the extended vacancy of a space in the Hub shopping center that used to house a bank; and executed a contract with an outside business without approval from the JCRA board of commissioners.

?Over the past few months, the new administration has observed you make unethical and imprudent business decisions that have entirely eroded our confidence in your ability to carry out the mission of the JCRA,? Fulop writes in the letter, dated today.

READ MORE

john1952 wrote:

No he's playing.

Quote:

Monroe wrote:
So much for Fulop not playing Hudson County style politics . . .

SteveWilson29 wrote:
Quote:

CatDog wrote:
what is it with this guy?

He's mad about coming in dead last for Ward E council.

Yvonne wrote:
There is a great deal of hypocrisy with this crowd, I don't care how people live their lives or who their partners are, my point is I do not want our legislators to pass a bill like this without public input. It will have a major impact on people like me who will be sued because they followed their religion. A right given in the first amendment. It is hypocritical to say it will not. Besides, what about living in a multicultural society? There are bigotry against religion, especially Catholics, who practice the faith as it is written. The next fashion on marriage might be plural marriage, marriage to family members (incest) and animals. I turned on my radio in the car and actually heard people advocating for these rights. I remember a man saying he wants to marry his sister. And another person talked about his special affection for his horse. The horse was more faithful than his wife.

Yvonne wrote:
To others:
I am not a cafeteria Catholic, I do not pick and choose what the Church says, I believe it is guided by the Holy Spirit. For those who believe differently, that is between you and God. I am talking about my right under the First Amendment, which everyone on this forum ignores, to practice my religion without being sued. That is all I care about. I will not throw mud or attack people who believe in gay marriage. That is not my agenda. I feel sorry for those who resort to those things. And when I present my ideas I do not hide behind phony names, I have the courage to use my real name. That is a gift from my faith, to be honest in the things I believe. And I will never, never, attack someone family's member.

john1952 wrote:
I been hearing they have been buy i-phones. Nothing but the best for the prince and his court. Stop frivolous spending. They make do with what ever does the job.

JPhurst wrote:
Quote:

john1952 wrote:
It was not a g-d sample. It was 800 responses from Fulop campaign supporters.

In our case, it was a meeting with the residents of Gulls Cove and Liberty Harbor North. Now I know for a fact that many people at that meeting were not "Fulop campaign supporters." Certainly, our district, like every district in Ward E, voted overwhelmingly for Fulop, but so what?

Plenty of steps to be taken won't cost a dime. Recalibrating traffic signals to allow for longer pedestrian crossings costs nothing. Putting parking back on streets costs nothing. Other costs are negligible.

And I know that at our meeting, Candice forthrightly stated that any measures that cost significant money, such as the installation of "bulbouts" would be a longer term project.

CRV2 wrote:
Yes he did. And Steve Fulop allowed it to happen by not firing him as soon as he took office. Thanks Steve.