As much as I've been one of those people hoping for a price drop so I can buy in the next couple of years, I worry that the fallout from all this for our society and economy as a whole will be far worse than any benefit buyers like me could reap. I'd much rather live in a society where home prices grew at a reasonable rate and people were strongly encouraged to borrow only what they can afford to pay back, even if it meant not having some coming "opportunity" to buy property at a low price.

doesnt' seem like there will be a change to anything. Plus this was introduced to eleviate parking problems in the heights... which.. I don't see how this would happen. any insight here?

Is this the same restaurant that has the early bird special prix fixe menu on weekends? If it is I ate there on a Sunday, and the food was great.

Jsalt and GrovePath,

thanks for posting such informative articles on this thread.
it's so sad that one of the foundations of the recent realestate boom is predatory lending on a wide scale.

That said, I've met plenty of JClisters who have nice jobs and want to purchase in the JC, but are still locked out of this market due to overvaluations. I think that one of the good points of a potential market correction is that some of these folks will be able to afford to buy here now......

and I say this as an owner with a long term investment in this community

I think this is it:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/ebad7158-d562-11db-a5c6-000b5df10621.html

==========================================
The wrong way to lend to the poor

By John Gapper -- Financial Times

Published: March 18 2007 18:06 | Last updated: March 18 2007 18:06

For confirmation of the old adage that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, take a look at the US housing market. Lavish Wall Street bonuses mean that apartments and houses for the well-off in New York are still rising smartly in price. Meanwhile, in the poor US city districts where many blacks and Latinos live, something very nasty is going down.

Global stock markets shuddered last week at the prospect that an implosion in the subprime mortgage market would pull the US into recession and crimp world growth. Subprime mortgage lenders such as New Century Financial are in trouble because so many borrowers have defaulted on their mortgages as interest rates have risen and homes have fallen in value.

ADVERTISEMENT

Since I had never heard of subprime mortgages until recently, I spent some time last week discovering what they are. This is what I was told.

Imagine a man who is married with two children and who has a low-paying job as, say, a school janitor. It is 2004. He rents an apartment and has watched enviously as property prices and rents have risen sharply in the US housing boom. He decides that, for the first time, he should be able to make money by owning property too.

He does not go to see his bank because he had trouble with his bills in the past and he is afraid of being humiliated. Instead, he walks into the office of a mortgage broker who got one of his friends a loan. He explains that he does not get paid a lot and has hardly any savings but he wants to buy a house. ?No problem,? the broker says, ?take a seat.

?Your credit score?s not great and your income?s not high but we can deal with all that. The first thing to decide is what mortgage you want. Everybody used to choose 30-year fixed rate loans but you might prefer one that starts off with low payments. You need to buy furniture, and paint the place, so it gives you breathing room for a couple of years.

?As for the income, don?t worry: just tell me you?re paid rather than coming up with the paperwork. There are some fees but we can just wrap all of those up in the loan so you don?t have to pay the money upfront. Here?s what your monthly payments will be. Not bad, is it? Just sign here, here, and, oh, here, and we can get things going with the bank.?

If all this sounds ominous, it is. Our janitor has just acquired an exploding Arm (adjustable-rate mortgage) which is as painful as it sounds. His interest payments were fixed at 7 per cent for two years, since short-term interest rates were low in 2004, but he got into arrears on property taxes, because the bank did not follow the customary practice of collecting them monthly.

?No problem,? says the broker, when he returns the next year with his tale of woe. ?Great to see you again. You were wise to buy that house because it?s gone up in value. We?ll just refinance the mortgage to cover some of these bills. Just sign here, here, and, oh, here.?

By 2006, house prices have started dropping in his city and, in the middle of the year, the mortgage payments are reset. His 6 per cent fixed rate jumps to 10 per cent, with a further rise to 12 per cent in prospect: his Arm has exploded. He cannot pay and goes back to his broker. But he is not greeted warmly this time: there is no home equity left to support another refinancing.

Bye-bye, home. The mortgage securitisation trust that diced up the credit risk of his mortgage into tranches for different pools of credit investors calls the bank that made the loan and tells it to repossess the property. The house is boarded up and auctioned, which pushes down the sagging prices of houses on the same street even further.

It adds up to a sorry tale of human nature and financial incentives. The broker earned a higher fee for selling our janitor an exploding Arm rather than a fixed-rate loan and by getting him to self-certify his income (which involved him paying a higher interest rate). By not escrowing taxes, the bank made it more likely that he would incur a prepayment penalty of 3 per cent of the mortgage.

As long as prices rose, equity could be extracted by the mortgage broker and the lender (and the Wall Street banks that securitised the mortgages) each time the janitor had to refinance. Indeed, they had a vested interest in his loan being unaffordable and in him requiring a new one. The credit risk had been securitised away and they gained another round of fees.

When the property market dipped, the music stopped. Here are some figures to reflect upon. Some 52 per cent of loans made to black people in 2005 were subprime and 80 per cent of these subprime loans were exploding Arms. About 70 per cent of subprime loans were booked by brokers who had no fiduciary responsibility to the borrowers they advised.

Martin Eakes, chief executive of Self-Help, a lender and credit union, has estimated that 2.2m families could lose their homes to foreclosure because they are unable to pay their mortgages. He thinks it could become ?the largest loss of African-American wealth in American history?, one that was largely avoidable if borrowers had been better advised and had been given more suitable loans.

Poor people will always pay more than rich ones for credit because they are more likely to default. The cost of sound advice, which they need, can add to fees. Nor can those who took out loans be absolved of responsibility for their plight. But, examining what has happened in the US mortgage market, even the staunchest advocate of caveat emptor must despair.

john.gapper@ft.com

John Gapper's column in today's Financial Times quoting Martin Eakes, CE of Self-Help, says that the sub-prime lending debacle could become "the largest loss of African-American wealth in American history."

Can anyone provide a link - this is a very informative article. I don't subscribe to their internet service (love those St. Joseph aspirin pages).

I agree with the scatterbrained service. The food was delish and the decor is one of the best in jc. The restrooms are also very clean. The prices are probably driven up because it is a relatively large space. I wonder what their rent is.

Quote:

It depends on how old and how paranoid you are.

The older you are, the more money you should have in cash and inflation-protected Treasury securities.

Assuming that you're younger than about 45 and have quite a long time to go before you retire:

If you're a normally cautious person: you could invest in variable annuities or mutual funds that offer principal guarantees. The fees are high, but someone who's really cautious might prefer to pay higher fees and get a principal guarantee, and the variable part will give you protection against inflation.

If you're just a little bit paranoid: put cash in some kind of fund that puts money in government-insured certificates of deposits or similar instruments around the world, so you've got cash protected against the risk of severe inflation in any one country.

If you're a lot paranoid: Physically go to several countries that don't have treaties requiring them to cooperate with U.S. financial regulators. Go to those countries in person and set up bank accounts there while you're there. That way, you have some protection against hyperinflation in any one country, and you also have protection against the U.S. government going haywire and outlawing foreign savings and investments.

If you're extremely, extremely paranoid: Invest in a small sailboat, sailing lessons and supplies for the boat.

Anything happening in downtown JC?

Vigils tonight to mark anniversary of Iraq war
Candlelight vigils will be held throughout the state tonight to mark the fourth anniversary of the war in Iraq.

In Hudson County, vigils will be held at 6 p.m. at Pershing Field in the Heights and at 8 p.m. at Elysian Park in Hoboken, Hudson Street between 10th and 11th streets.

The vigils are being organized by NJ Peace Action.

-- Excerpt from the Jersey Journal

I've almost gone in there a few times, but the two or three times we've reconsidered after looking over the prices on the menu compared to other places that I know are worth the price. Its tough being a new restaurant, especially with a high price tag. If its good food it would probably be worth the price, but since I haven't eaten there, I don't know if it does.

Council adopts new setback requirements

Jersey Journal
Monday, March 19, 2007

Responding to two years' worth of complaints, the Jersey City City Council last week adopted an ordinance changing front and rear yard setback requirements in residential neighborhoods.

Existing rules for the R1 Zone dictate a maximum front yard setback of 10 feet and a minimum rear yard setback of 30 feet.

The result, city officials said, are homes that don't fit with the rest of the block; and given the rear yard requirements, houses that had to be shortened.

Under the adopted rules, the front yard setback "shall match the setback . of the most frequently occurring setback on the blockfront."

In any event, the front and rear yard setback must add up to at least 35 feet and the rear yard setback has to be at least 20 feet.

KEN THORBOURNE

Jersey City's expected tax hike: 3 percent

Saturday, March 17, 2007
By KEN THORBOURNE
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

The city budget hasn't been adopted yet, but numbers crunchers in Jersey City say homeowners are looking at a 3 percent municipal tax hike - a far cry from last year's 18 percent deluge.

For property owners with homes assessed at $100,000, the bump in the total municipal tax levy, from $135 million to $140 million, will translate to an additional $70 on their yearly tax bill, said Business Administrator Brian O'Reilly.

"Tax increases at or less than the rate of inflation is a good job of management, given the increases in pension, health benefits, insurance, and fuel, while increasing police and fire services," O'Reilly added.

Members of the City Council are expected to introduce a total municipal tax budget estimated at $431 million this coming week and a public hearing and final vote for adoption is tentatively planned for March 28 at City Hall, officials said.

This budget covers July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007.

Taxpayers will also have to pay more for local public schools. Last year, the state cut school aid to Jersey City by $7.5 million and this year aid was reduced another $3.2 million.

To make up for those cuts, the city's school tax levy will rise to $79.6 million from $75.8 million, which will mean an extra $59 in yearly taxes for properties assessed at $100,000, O'Reilly said.

The county portion of the tax bill is still to come, but given the formula used to make that calculation, O'Reilly said he expects those taxes to go down.

The big ticket items that sent the budget numbers north this year: health insurance, pension costs, and police and fire department salaries, O'Reilly said.

Health insurance costs increased from $53.5 million last fiscal year to $57.9 million, he said. State-controlled pension costs rose from $11.7 million to $18.7 million. The tabs for salaries in the Fire and Police departments rose $2 million and $4 million, respectively, he said.

The city had 18 more cops on the job when this year's budget was introduced last September than it did the year before - 915 compared to 897, city officials said.

There are actually fewer firefighters working now (584) than when last year's budget was adopted (610). But a class of 42 recruits is on the way, officials said.

On the income side of the ledger, the city's income from "payment in lieu of taxes" from tax-abated properties rose $3 million, from roughly $77 million to $80.3 million. Ratables in the city - the assessed value of non tax-abated properties - have also risen by $300 million in the past two years, O'Reilly said.

If it were a democratic process, I would vote NO to any legislature that tried to use a increase in taxes to pay for this embankment.

I would vote for a grant from the state or federal govt to cover costs or some large percentage of the total costs.

I would also vote for redevelopment from a private party if a high enough percentage was used for public space.

I think we have more important issues to fund than using more than 2% (my rough numbers) of the yearly budget on the embankment.

Unfortunately, for too many, a bailout from the Bank of Mom&Dad is not an option ....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/17/bus ... 67b0a99bfc2222&ei=5087%0A



March 17, 2007

Mortgage Trouble Clouds Homeownership Dream
By EDUARDO PORTER and VIKAS BAJAJ


Perhaps the American dream of homeownership is not for everyone.

That may sound at odds with a bedrock notion of society promoted by presidents for decades. But many experts say it is a message that can be drawn from the rising troubles with mortgages provided to home buyers with weak credit.

Several large mortgage companies have stopped making new loans, and others have tightened lending standards.

Hundreds of thousands of families who bought houses in the last two years ? using loans with low teaser interest rates and no down payments ? are now losing them.

Their short tenure as homeowners calls into question whether the nation?s long drive to increase homeownership ? pushed by both public policy and financial innovations ? has overstepped some boundary of demographic and economic sense.

?Clearly we went too far,? said Joseph E. Gyourko, a professor of real estate and finance at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. ?It?s not the case that high homeownership is always good.?

Consider Nathaniel Shields, who expects to lose his four-bedroom Cape Cod house in southwest Chicago to a foreclosure in May.

He cannot afford his mortgage payment, which jumped to $1,300 a month from about $1,000 after his loan reset to a higher interest rate last summer. A divorce and the loss of his county government clerical job, which paid $14.80 an hour, have also hurt.

In 2004, Mr. Shields took out a popular hybrid mortgage that carried a fixed interest rate for two years before becoming an adjustable-rate loan for the remaining 28 years. In August, his loan?s interest rate rose from 6.6 percent to 8.1 percent, and to 9.6 percent now. ?I love the house,? said Mr. Shields, 47, who now works in a custodial job with the Chicago school district that pays $10.40 an hour. ?I put a lot of money in the house ? a deck and a new garage ? and they are just going to take the house.?

Kathleen Van Tiem, a counselor at Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago, has been trying to help him, but says that his weak credit and low income make him ineligible to refinance or modify his loan. Mr. Shields has put his house up for sale, but in a market with many homes available, he has found no takers.

There were surges in homeownership rates last century, but further gains have been slow going more recently, despite the hoopla of the housing bubble and the surge in home building.

The nation?s homeownership rate has increased by only about 1.4 percentage points since 2000, to almost 69 percent last year.

But subprime mortgages ? granted to borrowers like Mr. Shields with weak, or subprime, credit histories ? played a big role in achieving those levels.

This push, however, has meant intense financial strain for many families. Subprime borrowers will spend nearly 37 percent of their after-tax income on mortgage payments, insurance and property taxes this year, according to estimates by Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody?s Economy.com, drawn from Federal Reserve data.

This is about 20 percentage points more than prime borrowers and 10 points more than what subprime borrowers paid in 2000.

And their payments will get higher, Mr. Zandi estimates, as low teaser rates used to lure them into the market adjust upward after a few years.

When the housing market started weakening, subprime borrowers were the first to feel the squeeze. Almost 8 percent of subprime mortgages ? more than 450,000 loans ? were either in foreclosure or in arrears of more than three months in the fourth quarter of last year, according to the mortgage bankers.

Their unraveling means not only a string of failed lenders. Homeownership rates have slipped, and many low-income families, who dedicated meager savings toward a stake in their first homes, are facing foreclosure.

?I worry that people are overexposed to risk,? said Stuart S. Rosenthal, an economics professor at Syracuse University. ?We wouldn?t encourage people to buy risky stocks, so why do we encourage low-income families to invest in this risky asset, especially in tight markets??

But politicians have long encouraged the idea of homeownership. ?A nation of homeowners is unconquerable,? Franklin D. Roosevelt said. Promoting homeownership has been a cornerstone of President Bush?s ?ownership society.? He has declared June to be National Homeownership Month.

And government has played a substantial role in fostering homeownership ? including offering mortgage insurance and creating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them for sale to investors.

Moreover, the government has provided an ever-growing pile of subsidies to the buyers of homes.

The mortgage interest deduction, the biggest single subsidy to homeowners, will cost the federal budget about $80 billion this year, according to the administration?s projections. Deductions for state and local property taxes will cost $15.5 billion.

Allowing homeowners to pocket tax-free much of the profit from selling their homes is expected to cost $37 billion more. Altogether, this amounts to almost 5 percent of the federal government?s total tax revenue, and almost three times HUD?s entire $42 billion budget. Now even some in Washington are questioning the soundness of pushing homeownership so broadly.

United States policies in recent years promoted the idea of homeownership too hard and at the expense of rental housing, said Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts. ?I wish people could own more homes,? he said in an interview yesterday. ?But I also wish I could eat and not gain weight.?

And the government?s efforts to promote homeownership are far from an unqualified success. From 2000 to 2005, homeownership rates increased significantly only among households in the top two-fifths of the income distribution, those earning more than $46,883, according to the Census Bureau?s American Community Survey.

Homeownership declined for families in the bottom two-fifths of the income scale. In the lowest fifth ? where families make less than $20,180 ? homeownership was only 42.4 percent in 2005, which was 3 percentage points less than it was 25 years earlier and 26 percentage points below the national average.

Part of the reason is the structure of government subsidies, which are worth very little to low-income families but quite a bit to families with big incomes. Those well-off families typically do not need government support to buy a home but use it to buy bigger places than they would otherwise purchase.

The mortgage interest deduction alone is worth about $21,000 to a taxpayer in the highest bracket of income with a $1 million mortgage. But for a typical family that bought, say, a $220,000 house with 20 percent down, the break is worth about $1,600.

Some economists question whether the government should be subsidizing homeownership in the first place.

Edward L. Glaeser, a professor of economics at Harvard, said he could understand government ?giving a slight push to increase homeownership, but the current incentives are much more than a slight push.?

Economic studies do suggest that homeowners try to maintain the value of their properties ? tending to their gardens and investing in their communities. But it is not clear that homeownership itself fosters these behaviors; it could be that people who invest in their communities prefer to own their own homes.

Homeownership also has a more problematic side: it locks people into an asset and ties them to a place. ?Too much homeownership might restrict mobility, and that may not be a good thing,? Professor Gyourko said.

Take Adam Gardner, a 29-year-old appraiser who bought a three-bedroom, two-bath house 20 miles north of Reno, Nev., for about $255,000 two years ago. His wife is pining to move closer to town, but with housing prices falling all around him, Mr. Gardner doubts they can pull it off. ?I?m not sure we can sell the place we are in,? Mr. Gardner said.

Some people can bear tying up much of their wealth in a house ? those with a secure, well-paid job in a stable labor market, for instance. But others might need more freedom to move: the young in pursuit of love or careers, say, or workers in declining job markets.

The American dream of homeownership may continue to grow over coming decades, if only because the population is aging and older people are more likely to own their own home. But for now, even industry insiders acknowledge that, at the very least, it is going to take a breather.

Ted J. Grose, a mortgage broker in Los Angeles, said, ?For the moment we may have plateaued.? For all the concerns about low-income families facing foreclosure, some economists believe that the development of the subprime credit market has, over all, been a boon for people with low income.

Harvey S. Rosen, a professor of economics at Princeton who was a former economic adviser to President Bush, put it this way: ?Ultimately the public policy choice is going to be whether to make it harder for people to get these loans, and just shut people out, or let people make the choice and know that sometimes they will make mistakes.?


Stephen Labaton contributed reporting from Washington.


Home
World U.S. N.Y. / Region Business Technology Science Health Sports Opinion Arts Style Travel Jobs Real Estate Automobiles Back to Top
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

I don't see NJ or Federal funding as better than a tax on JC residents (including me). If people in JC aren't willing to pony up the money for the park why should someone in Cape May or Wyoming have to do so? Part of my point about NH and VT having more honest government is that local control, locals paying the tax, and local accountability are a large part of it.

Once one adopts the notion that there's a big trough of free money and that getting one's snout in it first is all that matters, one has given up all hope of fiscal responsibility on the part of the government.

Quote:

Although I think residential real estate has been overvalued for a number of years on the basis of owning costs vs. renting costs (i.e. the fundamentals), this guy is hardly a disinterested observer. If the subprime mortgage crisis becomes an issue for residential real estate in general and then for equities (a bit of a leap), resulting in a more broad crisis then where should one put one's money? A traditional safe haven is gold or other commodities.

Now maybe Jim Rogers is just a nice guy who doesn't want us to get hurt in what he sees as a certain scenario. He just wants us to share in and take advantage of his wisdom of going from being a stock guru to a commodities guru. Then again, as a commodities guru the flat performance recently of the commodities he doubtless holds sure could be improved by a panic....

Quote:

I think I can safely report that The Great Jersey City SOUP SWAP '07 was a success.

I came home with a Salsa Soup, the famous Chili, Seafood Gumbo and Pasta Fazul. And there was so many other great soups to choose from.

Thank you to everyone who came, who brought delicious soups, and gave generously to the food pantry.

If you have any suggestions or ideas for the next SOUP SWAP I'd be happy to hear them.

A few people also suggested some kind of summer swap... maybe ice cream swap, or smoothie swap, frozen daiquiri swap, salsa or sauces swap... I'm open to ideas.

Again, I just want to thank everyone who came. This was my first time meeting jclisters as a group, and it was really nice.

I hope everyone had a good time and you all enjoy your soups! Thanks again.

I've been there three times. The food has been good each time, but the service was very poor on the first visit. It all comes down to the waitresses. The first waitress was hopelessly inept. She mixed up orders, was slow and didn't have much inclination to make things right. Servers on subsequent visits were great.

Great food, excellent service, awesome prices on drinks, great bartenders. Love the spot and the owner Patrick is just a sweet irishman. You can tell he is very driven. Food there is decently priced and very impressive, very tastey, presentation is very classy, and well, tasty. I wish them luck.

While I've come to generally prefer Cafe Manila just up the street (more interesting selection), Fiesta still does a great fried tilapia--very juicy and tasty. As mentioned in the review, the lapaz bachoy is also an excellent cold weather soup/meal.

The Webmaster should figure out how to duplicate this thread and insert it into the jury duty thread, because Fiesta Grill is one of the great reasons to look forward to doing jury duty in Hudson County.

Nice review, but the actual "best bet" is to go with a friend or two, and order a combination meal each (rice or pancit along with two side dishes -- I almost always get sinigang (tamarind soup) and inihaw (grilled pork)) and get a short order of crispy pata (deep fried pig's knuckles, $5.95) or sisig (saut?ed pork belly served with a dash of lemon juice on a sizzling platter, $6.95) to share.

I'm totally unqualified to evaluate Filipino food, but I ate there a bunch while I was doing jury duty, and I thought it was great.

March 18, 2007
New Jersey
Filipino Fast Food to Linger Over
By KELLY FEENEY

Fiesta Grill in Jersey City may be a turo-turo (Filipino fast-food) restaurant, yet its home-cooked meals are good enough to be savored slowly.

Turo-turo comes from the Tagalog verb that means ?to point,? and that?s exactly what you do when ordering at the cafeteria-style counter: point to the dishes you want to try. Most of the food on the extensive menu is familiar Filipino fare, which has Chinese, Spanish and Malay influences.

The lumpia sariwa, a vegetable spring roll served with a peanut butter and garlic sauce, is a good starter. For a light lunch, try the pancit bihon, translucent rice noodles mixed with scallions, carrots and cabbage. The ginataang sitaw at kalabasa, or saut?ed string beans and squash in coconut milk, is a tangy accompaniment. The batchoy, a classic soup with pork and noodles, is a meal in itself.

But the best bet is to order a combination meal, which consists of rice or pancit along with two side dishes (options change daily but include meat, seafood and vegetable choices). The chicken apritada with potatoes, peppers and carrots is a straightforward choice, whereas the lechon kawali, crispy deep-fried pork belly served with a liver sauce, is for the more adventurous eater. The sweet-and-sour tilapia puts a fresh spin on a common sauce. Prices are inexpensive; the combination meal, for example, costs $3.95.

Ponciano Aguirre and Fely Empestan opened the first Fiesta Grill in 1998 on Newark Avenue, with 18 tables. A second and much larger Fiesta Grill opened in 2005 on West Side Avenue, across town; there is a banquet hall for 200 with a dance floor. Prices there are slightly higher, but free parking is available.

Fiesta Grill, 655 Newark Avenue, Jersey City; (201) 656-7060. Open daily from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. 819 West Side Avenue, Jersey City; (201) 433-9600. Open Tuesday and Wednesday from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m.; Thursday from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m.; Friday and Saturday from 10 a.m. to midnight, Sunday 10 a.m. to 11 p.m. Closed Monday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/18/nyr ... onspecial2/18NJQbite.html

jerseyslogan - You haven't answered my complaint about the lame logo on the back.

Please can you get rid of it? I will buy some more if you do.

Robin.

The Ten Faulty Consensus Views about Sub-prime and Soft-Landing?and the Ten Ugly Truths about the Coming Economic and Financial Hard Landing

http://www.rgemonitor.com/blog/roubini/183694

PS: If you have time, take a look at the paper by Rosner (Point #4)... Scary (and we have stupidity, corruption and greed not just in that segment)!

Following up on my post of 3/15 re: The Bank of Mom and Dad

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/18/rea ... cov.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Welcome To Jersey City, here's your parking ticket!

I agree with Tris McCall (see his recent blog below) but if The Jersey City Museum and The Loews are being asked to hand over their "blood money" so should the artists who walked away with like 8 months of free rent because of the settlement or capitulation, call it whatever you want. -fedupjc

Wednesday, March 7, 2007
William Rodwell sent out a missive yesterday via e-mail. When the President-in-Exile of the 111 Tenants Association writes, I listen. This time around, Bill comes hard with a little art criticism, and a challenge. Some interesting excerpts:

World-renowned Dutch architect Rem Koolhaus recently made public his design for the 111 site. My initial reaction was that it?s a welcome change from the uninspired corporate detritus now littering the downtown landscape. However, upon reflection it?s 2nd rate Koolhaus. The design does not live up to the inspired architecture Mr. Koolhaus is noted for ? especially his design for the Seattle Library, a masterpiece of contemporary architecture. I urge Mr. Koolhaus to go back to the drawing board and give it another go.

Recently, Mayor Healy presented a check for $330,000 in settlement money to the Jersey City Museum. While both the Museum and the Loew?s Theater are worthy entities deserving of funding, accepting money from a source that evicted and brutalized the artist?s community at 111 is tantamount to accepting Blood Money. It reminds me of an incident in the aftermath of 9/11 when an arab prince gave Mayor Giuliani a check for 10 million dollars. A deluge of criticism erupted for accepting this kind of money from that kind of source. Mayor Giuliani returned the check. Memo to the Museum and the Loew?s: what are you waiting for??

A few comments from the peanut gallery (me). I cannot speak on the architectural merit ot the Seattle Library; to me, it looks like a big glass catcher?s mitt. However, when you?re standing in its shadow, it may well be awesome ? and the new designs for 111 First Street don?t seem awesome at all. Getting stuck with some Rem Koolhaas B-side would be a very Jersey City fate. If we?re going to drag this guy in here, we should demand that he put at least enough thought into our Downtown as he gave the Pacific Northwest.

Also, I really like ? and want to perpetuate ? the ?Koolhaus? spelling of the celeb-architect?s name. It makes him sound that much more like a cartoon character; a cross between Joe Cool and Milhouse from *The Simpsons*. Moreover, I move that from now on in, everybody should refer to the proposed tower at 111 as the Kool Haus. As in: ?hey, dude, stay in your uncool house if you want to. Me and my cool friends are moving to the Kool Haus.? Now *there?s* some marketing that?ll work on post-fraternity scumbags.

Bill calls the Jersey City Museum a worthy entity. I?m not a visual artist, so I can admit that I?m not sure they?ve earned that kind of respect. They?ve been in town long enough to know the history of the PAD and local development politics, but they often behave like complete newbies. (Or worse.) We can?t even get a clarifying statement out of these people. JC Museum: what is your explanation for taking money from the most notorious developer in town ? the man who took down the Arts Center and treated Jersey City artists like trash in the process? Let me be the first to echo the 111 Tenants Association President?s challenge. I think Bill is absolutely right to demand that the Museum return Lloyd Goldman?s dirty dolo. Organized boycotts are stupid, but I?ll tell you this: I will not be returning to the Museum until they tear up that check.