JERSEY CITY LIST - Message Forum

Forum Index

Board index » All Posts

Bottom

« 1 ... 7682 7683 7684 (7685) 7686 7687 7688 ... 7912 »

bdlaw

Re: We Will Remember! Pay to play voted down

#230521

Home away from home

Shocker.

Posted on: 2007/1/25 0:17

Topic | Forum

DTMercer

We Will Remember! Pay to play voted down

#230522

Not too shy to talk

Fulop's Pay to play first reading was voted down tonight. The vote was laughable...in fact many in the very large audience lauged quite a bit as councilman after councilman scraped the barrel to come up with excuses to vote nay. Even after Steve tried to explain away any possible excuses...they came up with new ones. Like: "I get all these requests for money from the community...this is how I am able to give money to these requests...from the developers." Not make any sense to you? Me either. I thought money going to campaigns needed to be for campaigns.

Thanks for trying Steve. I hope your packing heat while your up there in that council. That's what one should do when surrounded by criminals.

Posted on: 2007/1/25 0:15

Topic | Forum

jc_insomniac

Re: Developer Pay-to-Play Press Release- Steven Fulop

#230523

Home away from home

I am sad to report that the campaign reform ordinance was defeated. Two votes for (Fulop, Richardson), six against, and one abstinence (Vega). Expect to see the video from Falcon shortly.

Posted on: 2007/1/25 0:15

Topic | Forum

NONdowntown

Re: Developer Pay-to-Play Press Release- Steven Fulop

#230524

Home away from home

Great questions, Althea. I share your hesitation to completely back this ordinance gangbusters style.

For the record, the fact that no other actions have been filed challenging the constitutionality of the ordinance does not mean that no colorable claim against it exists.

I can see a hum-dinger of an Equal Protection argument, i.e. why developers are singled out to not participate in the process by funding the campaigns of politicians they feel will serve their interests, as is my right and your right to do. Why not a prohibition against all businesses with whom the city deals? It's a slippery slope argument, but it's a legitimate one.

Posted on: 2007/1/24 23:42

Topic | Forum

NONdowntown

Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$

#230525

Home away from home

NNJR - i think you're almost right - as i understand it, the developer would be barred from making donations for a minimum of one year from selection as designated developer, and throughout the entire period of the development project.

somebody tell me if i've got it right:

if i am joe q. lefrak, and i want to be a designated developer, i cannot have made a contribution within 1 year of that consideration. If i am selected, i am then forbidden from making any political contributions throughout the life-span of the development project (let's say 18-36 months for an average project).

Then, if i want to still be eligible for consideration for being a designated developer, i must keep my hands 'clean', i.e. i am forbidden from making a contribution within a year. rinse and repeat.

do i have it right? anybody?

Posted on: 2007/1/24 23:34

Topic | Forum

bdlaw

Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$

#230526

Home away from home

NNJR- your post is exactly why this thread is confusing me.

Isn't it generally acknowledged and accepted that "pay to play" is inherently a bad thing? So where is this opposition coming from?

Abatements and PILOTs are absolutely a separate issue in my mind, except the oblique connection/possibility you raise.

Posted on: 2007/1/24 23:27

Topic | Forum

NNJR

Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$

#230527

Home away from home

Two items are being mixed up here

1) Pay-to-Play. There should be no hoopla, the ordinance is to limit developers to contribute to a politician under some circumstances (not all) for a year.

2) PILOTs / abatement. This issue is not even in question tonight and doesn't have much to do with pay-to-play.

abatements /= pay to play, however a developer could give money to a politician in return for a vote for an abatement.

This is the way I see it, correct me if I'm wrong.

Posted on: 2007/1/24 22:53

Topic | Forum

vixen

Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$

#230528

Newbie

And don't feed me any baloney.

Posted on: 2007/1/24 22:48

Topic | Forum

super_furry

Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$

#230529

Home away from home

This is one of Vixen's first posts:

"Do not fool yourself. We are all trolls hiding behind a fake name. Come on you guys. feed me!!!!"

Quote:

vixen wrote:
I'm not buying into the hoopla. I'm not even going.

Posted on: 2007/1/24 21:58

Topic | Forum

vixen

Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$

#230530

Newbie

I'm not buying into the hoopla. I'm not even going.

Posted on: 2007/1/24 21:42

Topic | Forum

bdlaw

Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$

#230531

Home away from home

Much obliged, injc.

I know it's late in the process for this but I think I need to step back and digest all the arguments for / against before I make up my mind.

Posted on: 2007/1/24 21:37

Topic | Forum

injcsince81

Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$

#230532

Home away from home

Quote:

bdlaw wrote:

injc, while you make a nice point about the "ideological rant", you do conveniently ignore PHResident's "gaming of the marketplace" argument.

So how about addressing that?

I'll address it thusly:

1. JC is competing mostly with NYC, and in that sense is handicapped (the Jersey syndrome). Hence, incentives are necessary.

2. In case of big corporate clients (the Merrill Lynches of the world), NYC is also offering huge incentives. So the market IS deciding. I think those who think that others in the market don't offer incentives are deluded.

I have no idea how PHResident knows that if JC stopped PILOTs on the waterfront the development would continue unabated (pun intended).

I think it's too high a risk to take (Brooklyn and Queens are just waiting for this).

Posted on: 2007/1/24 21:35

Topic | Forum

vixen

Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$

#230533

Newbie

Quote:

PHResident wrote:

Quote:

injcsince81 wrote:

I am very concerned that he'll bring the development that JC has experienced so far to a grinding halt. He'll need to convince me that he's not anti-development if he wants my vote.

These large developers aren't building to do Jersey City any favors. We've reached critical mass on development on or near the waterfront. We have to stop acting as if these people will simply pick up their toys and leave if we stand up for ourselves. We've gone from encouraging development in this city to simply being doormats. And when and if we wish to stop being doormats, it's going to be up to us to put a stop to it, because those who are walking all over us aren't going to change on their own.

Okay so I am seeing the light. Slowing down developement of dirty jersey city.

You count me out now.

Posted on: 2007/1/24 21:35

Topic | Forum

bdlaw

Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$

#230534

Home away from home

Interesting. I find myself torn between agreeing with both of you, and neither of you.

injc, while you make a nice point about the "ideological rant", you do conveniently ignore PHResident's "gaming of the marketplace" argument.

So how about addressing that?

Posted on: 2007/1/24 21:18

Topic | Forum

injcsince81

Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$

#230535

Home away from home

Quote:

PHResident wrote: Quote:
injcsince81 wrote: Quote:
EthanCrane wrote: Quote:
injcsince81 wrote: I am very concerned that he'll bring the development that JC has experienced so far to a grinding halt. He'll need to convince me that he's not anti-development if he wants my vote.
I'm just not sure what you're referring to.
His tax abatement voting records. You need to give business to gain business. Simple as that. Always has been, always will be. His tax abatement voting record does not impress me.
I believe Steve has voted for some abatements. The two that come to my mind are The Beacon and The American Can Company project. I believe that both of these projects received 30 year deals (with The Beacon receiving multiple PILOTs). The difference between those Steve supported and those he voted against is wholly based on whether the area of the city where a particular project is being build needs incentives to attract developers or not. The "Gold Coast", as it is referred to by many throughout the area, no longer qualifies as an area in need of incentives. Giving handouts (in the form of PILOTs) to developers to build in areas where they would likely build anyway is simply corporate welfare at best and a system of quid quo pro in the worst case scenario. And as much as the "pro-business" class loves to rail against social welfare, I would think that they would also rail against corporate welfare (at least in theory). Aren't the market forces supposed to hash all of this out? Isn't giving incentives to business in areas where no incentives are needed in a way not letting the market dictate things? Social conservatives love to point out that the "welfare state" keeps individuals from taking responsibility for their own lives and keeps them stuck in patterns where they are always expecting a hand out. But can't the same thing be said for continually handing out money to businesses? Aren't we in a sense saying we believe in the free market system all the while we are artificially propping it up? The suggestion that ending the practice of giving PILOTs to properties along the waterfront is going to halt future development is laughable. These large developers aren't building to do Jersey City any favors. They come, and continue to come, because they see a lucrative market for their product. Most of them chose JC and make plans and then ask for the PILOTs later. They simply ask because they know that our city government just can?t say no (not only to PILOTs, but to a whole host of other things). We've reached critical mass on development on or near the waterfront. We have to stop acting as if these people will simply pick up their toys and leave if we stand up for ourselves. We've gone from encouraging development in this city to simply being doormats. And when and if we wish to stop being doormats, it's going to be up to us to put a stop to it, because those who are walking all over us aren't going to change on their own.

Nice ideological rant. I don't agree with a single word you just said. The developers bring the City brand new ratables thanks to their "PILOT handouts". They bring jobs, too, both pre-construction, construction and post-construction. Welfare handouts perpetuate the cycle of poverty and bring nothing. >>These large developers aren't building to do Jersey City any favors. They come, and continue to come, because they see a lucrative market for their product. << It's called business. >>And when and if we wish to stop being doormats, it's going to be up to us to put a stop to it... snip<< Ahhh, a valiant call to arms... Count me out. I like the fact that Healy is pro-development, warts and all.

Posted on: 2007/1/24 21:15

Topic | Forum

JPhurst

Re: Save Riverview Park!

#230536

Home away from home

Another interesting tidbit from the meeting. The Jersey City Landmarks Conservancy, along with others, had long advocated making Holland Street, the jewel of the few remaining cobblestoned streets in Jersey City, an extension of the park. The road has long been closed to traffic (the community vociferously objected to reopening it and paving over the cobblestones when Tom DeGise proposed it in 1999), and since it's a city street, there would be no significant cost in acquisition. This would have been a way to preserve one of the few cobblestoned streets in the city, and also increase open space.

T&M said that they had, in fact recommended that suggestion, but that it was taken out of the draft plan at the cost of city officials.

Apparently there were several other spaces that T&M listed as priority acqusition as well, but the City said no to. Most notable was the Bergen Arches.

I would encourage everyone at the Ward D meeting to demand that the Holland Street addition be placed back in the plan. Also demand that the city not set aside acqusition of open space that has been previously recommended by T&M.

Joshua Parkhurst
President
Jersey City Landmarks Conservancy

Posted on: 2007/1/24 21:07

Topic | Forum

Althea

Re: Developer Pay-to-Play Press Release- Steven Fulop

#230537

Home away from home

My main worry with this ordinance was if there are any civil liberties issues here. Were people's individual rights being trampled on? I couldn't be in good conscience pro this ordinance if it violates the rights of some to participate in politics as some here have suggested.

I just got off the phone with Common Cause, http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1187499
who I was referred to by the NJ affiliate of the ACLU. The ACLU does not claim any civil rights violations and has not taken up any cases around this issue.

Common Cause sees no legal challenges based on the rights of developers to participate in politics.

This being said, if you were concerned with this issue as well, I know how I would vote if I had a vote.

Althea

Posted on: 2007/1/24 21:02

Topic | Forum

HCResident

Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$

#230538

Home away from home

Quote:

injcsince81 wrote:
Quote:

EthanCrane wrote:
Quote:

injcsince81 wrote:

I am very concerned that he'll bring the development that JC has experienced so far to a grinding halt.

He'll need to convince me that he's not anti-development if he wants my vote.

I'm just not sure what you're referring to.

His tax abatement voting records.

You need to give business to gain business.

Simple as that. Always has been, always will be.

His tax abatement voting record does not impress me.

I believe Steve has voted for some abatements. The two that come to my mind are The Beacon and The American Can Company project. I believe that both of these projects received 30 year deals (with The Beacon receiving multiple PILOTs).

The difference between those Steve supported and those he voted against is wholly based on whether the area of the city where a particular project is being build needs incentives to attract developers or not. The "Gold Coast", as it is referred to by many throughout the area, no longer qualifies as an area in need of incentives.

Giving handouts (in the form of PILOTs) to developers to build in areas where they would likely build anyway is simply corporate welfare at best and a system of quid quo pro in the worst case scenario. And as much as the "pro-business" class loves to rail against social welfare, I would think that they would also rail against corporate welfare (at least in theory).

Aren't the market forces supposed to hash all of this out? Isn't giving incentives to business in areas where no incentives are needed in a way not letting the market dictate things?

Social conservatives love to point out that the "welfare state" keeps individuals from taking responsibility for their own lives and keeps them stuck in patterns where they are always expecting a hand out. But can't the same thing be said for continually handing out money to businesses? Aren't we in a sense saying we believe in the free market system all the while we are artificially propping it up?

The suggestion that ending the practice of giving PILOTs to properties along the waterfront is going to halt future development is laughable. These large developers aren't building to do Jersey City any favors. They come, and continue to come, because they see a lucrative market for their product. Most of them chose JC and make plans and then ask for the PILOTs later. They simply ask because they know that our city government just can?t say no (not only to PILOTs, but to a whole host of other things).

We've reached critical mass on development on or near the waterfront. We have to stop acting as if these people will simply pick up their toys and leave if we stand up for ourselves.

We've gone from encouraging development in this city to simply being doormats. And when and if we wish to stop being doormats, it's going to be up to us to put a stop to it, because those who are walking all over us aren't going to change on their own.

Posted on: 2007/1/24 20:42

Topic | Forum

fat-ass-bike

Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$

#230539

Home away from home

I'd be happy to donate $50,000 to a politician, so long as I can get an assurance that I'll get a tax break, a 'bid free' piece of cheap land or a contract from council that I can price to recoup my donation!

As the saying goes - NOTHING COMES FOR FREE!

Posted on: 2007/1/24 19:48

Edited by fat-ass-bike on 2007/1/24 20:29:18

My humor is for the silent blue collar majority - If my posts offend, slander or you deem inappropriate and seek deletion, contact the webmaster for jurisdiction.

Topic | Forum

Mouse

Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$

#230540

Home away from home

Quote:

DanL wrote:

Andrew Hubsch, now Civic JC Vice President, made a last minute effort to get on the ballot in this past mayoral election. In an interview by Tris Mccall, he describes why he did it and how the current system places huge obstacles for a candidate outside the current political system.

THE REFORMER: ANDREW HUBSCH TAKES ON CITY HALL

I signed his ballot petition. Andrew seems like a sincere "do gooder" type, and I applaud his efforts.

Hopefully next time he will give himself more lead time to get the ballots.

-M

Posted on: 2007/1/24 19:16

I cook with wine, sometimes I even add it to the food.
W. C. Fields

Topic | Forum

DanL

Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$

#230541

Home away from home

GrovePath-

I have wondered where your optimism that things in JC are going great comes from. I too am optimistic, but in a different way. I believe we can fix things.

Andrew Hubsch, now Civic JC Vice President, made a last minute effort to get on the ballot in this past mayoral election. In an interview by Tris Mccall, he describes why he did it and how the current system places huge obstacles for a candidate outside the current political system.

He also outlines how the mayoral field was cleared for Mayor Healy who in effect ran unoppossed. Now regardless of Healy's merits, one might think that in a city approaching 250,000 people, there would be some opposition.

Please take some time to read the interview.

THE REFORMER: ANDREW HUBSCH TAKES ON CITY HALL

Quote:

GrovePath wrote:
I do think that Jersey City could have done far worse than Mayor Healy -- can you tell us more about that candidate who was kept off the ballot and what you liked about her? I really would like to know -- I am not one of the "ringers" on here pushing some agenda. My girlfriend and I moved here 3 years ago and hope the best for all of Jersey City -- longterm!

Posted on: 2007/1/24 18:58

Topic | Forum

fat-ass-bike

Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$

#230542

Home away from home

There appears to be a monopoly in the construction and development game and it starts with paying off politicians with donations.

Competitiveness doesn't exist they way it should, when developers and larger construction co.'s can buy a contract.

Do we recall the outlandish cost for a dog run!

I should add that development for JC is a good thing, but it MUST be transparent and competitive.

Posted on: 2007/1/24 18:21

My humor is for the silent blue collar majority - If my posts offend, slander or you deem inappropriate and seek deletion, contact the webmaster for jurisdiction.

Topic | Forum

super_furry

Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$

#230543

Home away from home

Right. No sense if trying to promote what you believe in. Just let them have their way!

Posted on: 2007/1/24 18:20

Topic | Forum

bdlaw

Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$

#230544

Home away from home

What are the mechanics of politics if not agenda pushing?

Posted on: 2007/1/24 18:18

Topic | Forum

super_furry

Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$

#230545

Home away from home

The ordinance has been vetted, and has been enacted with modifications in other towns. Read the ordinance and decide for yourself. Most city council members are trying to bury this. Nobody is trying to push this on you, but we are not going to roll over and let them win.

Quote:

vixen wrote:
There appears to be a lot of agenda pushing,,,Sounds very premature.

Posted on: 2007/1/24 18:11

Topic | Forum

MediaAvid

Re: Save Riverview Park!

#230546

Quite a regular

Maybe the consultants are fans of Field Of Dreams.

"If you build it he will come."

I agree volleyball and tennis courts do not make sense there.

Posted on: 2007/1/24 17:57

Topic | Forum

MCA

Re: Jersey City needs to be more aggressive to woo Merrill Lynch's 48 story/2.3mil sq ft of office s

#230547

Just can't stay away

GP, I appreciate you putting this piece up, as the Jersey Journal site is a pain to navigate, but I wish you'd be more diligent about labeling. For the record, this is Jarrett Renshaw's latest Location column. I know it's a small thing to some, but I like to know the author's name as well as whether it's a straight news piece or op-ed (obvious in this case), and if I have to go to the JJ site to get it, your posting ceases to be a time-saver for me. Thanks.

On topic: I don't know whether Councilman Fulop supports abatements or incentives in this case (I suspect not), but I do know that Mayor Healy campaigned on a platform of no further abatements on the waterfront -- a promise he has broken repeatedly, which I hope people will remember come election time.

Posted on: 2007/1/24 17:50

www.weirdjc.com

Topic | Forum

DanL

Re: Developer Pay-to-Play Press Release- Steven Fulop

#230548

Home away from home

There has been plenty of time for the council to discuss and research this issue. At least 7 months.

On behalf of Civic JC, I presented a similiar model ordinance to the City Council on June 14, 2006. Two other Civic JC officers along with myself introduced, discussed and offered to meet with any and all council members in an effort to move this initiative forward. Only Councilman Fulop and Councilwoman Richardson spoke to us after the meeting.

We followed up and spoke at the June 28th meeting offering again to meet with and do whatever we could to help the council advance it.

I wrote each councilmember with a copy of the proposed model ordinance mid-October 2006 asking for their comments and position, requesting response by December 1, 2006. No response was received.

The ordinance has not faced a legal challenge to date in other towns that have passed it. Citizen's Campaign is not aware of any pending challenges.

Quote:

Althea wrote:
I'm still conflicted and unclear about this issue and will be there tonight to hear the arguments.

However, Lipski is my councilman, Ward C, so my eyes are on him and how he represents my neighborhood and community as a whole.

On thing he has brought up is the need to have talked about this issue with other agencies and with fellow council. Was this not done? Is this true, partly true? Was there no consensus building?

Another is the issue of assuming we have a negative impression of politicians in JC and developers and politicians and developers... etc... that introducing an ordinance that wants to make things more transparent is bad because it only draws more attention to the bad impression that we already have? This logic fails me...

Should we pretend the problem or impression doesn't exist? State that it is false and move on? What?

The last issue that I have is the idea that this ordinance should not be passed because it might bring on a lawsuit that will waste tax payer?s money. Did Lipski speak out against the anti-gun ordinances passed and then was over-turned by the NJ Superior court? These were completely ineffectual, feel good ordinances that Healy championed, but ended up, ?costing the taxpayers a significant amount of city funds in a losing effort.?

What is the ?Zoning Checklist??

I have been unable to contact the NJ ACLU for their take on the issue, but am wondering, what are these rights violations that people are talking about? Are they civil liberties issues, such as the right to participate in government? etc.?

Sincerely,

Althea

Posted on: 2007/1/24 17:37

Topic | Forum

vixen

Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$

#230549

Newbie

Quote:

GrovePath wrote:
I am not one of the "ringers" on here pushing some agenda.

There appears to be a lot of agenda pushing. I cannot stand agenda pushing. It is a real turnoff. What ever happened to putting the FACTS out there and letting the people decide for themselves if the ordinance is good/bad/or a little of both and needs more work. Sounds very premature.

Posted on: 2007/1/24 17:36

Topic | Forum

Althea

Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$

#230550

Home away from home

Melissa Holloway was the main candidate. I liked many of her stances, but would have liked to have seen more debate about her qualifications.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage ... 231F936A15757C0A9639C8B63

http://www.trismccall.net/jcj_holloway.htm

But my point is not how good a mayor Holloway would have made, it was how Healy played this seedy game where we lost the possibilty of a viable candidate for him to run against. The timing of this was very questionable.

I don't care about the whole, "Nude on his lawn" thing... I thought the last election was pure dirty politics and outright lying to constituents. Of course we could do worse, but right now I'm not sure how much.

Put viable candidates on the ballot and then let voters decide, but don't expect me to have any respect for a Mayor that works to remove his completition under false technicalities.

And don't expect me to vote for a mayor who claims to be anti abatement for areas that clearly don't need them, such as waterfront developers... stated in many sources directly from the horse's mouth... and then be completely pro tax abatements for the waterfront as soon as you are elected.

Sorry, that just pisses me off that he gets away with that kind of crap!

Althea

Posted on: 2007/1/24 17:35

Topic | Forum

Top

« 1 ... 7682 7683 7684 (7685) 7686 7687 7688 ... 7912 »