|
Re: Lincoln Park home plan is altered, but not enough for neighbors
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
"To a father/son development team, the two-family house going up at 91 Gifford Ave. in Jersey City represents a good investment and a home where they might someday live."
THEY DID NOT RETURN CALLS FOR COMMENT. Yet in paragraph one, the JJ paints them out to be a father and son in need of a home? PUH-LEEZE, LaToya! They never even returned a call to the JJ to tell them the greatest developer lie ever told ("we're building it to maybe live in.") Of the garage-on-bottom pink-brick monstrosities, can anybody name me more than 2 of them in the entire city that are owner-occupied?
Posted on: 2007/3/9 18:24
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: I.M. Pei in Jersey City
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Didn't Pei design the Javitz Centre?
EWWWW.
Posted on: 2007/3/5 22:36
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: OPPORTUNITY KNOCKS IN HUDSON: For the job-hungry, there are plenty of choices
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I would never "out" a lister's identity, but i have it on good authority that one of the people quoted in this very article is a JCLister most of us would recognize as a not-infrequent poster...
Posted on: 2007/3/1 15:56
|
|||
|
||||
|
Renshaw's Column: "Their bottom line: Mustn't stop those tax abatements" [JJ 2/28]
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Their bottom line: Mustn't stop those tax abatements
Wednesday, February 28, 2007 JARRETT RENSHAW'S LOCATION COLUMN Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah Healy recently assembled a brain trust to diagnose the city's economic future. The six-member commission of business professionals released their results this week and some of their findings and recommendations may come as a surprise. The authors say overspending is not the cause of Jersey City's annual structural budget deficit. So we can stop worrying about the countless number of patronage jobs in City Hall and elsewhere that place obvious strain on the budget and represent a slap in the face to hard-working taxpayers. No, the authors claim, the problem is the city's reluctance to raise property taxes, and its reliance on one-shot revenue deals to avoid raising taxes. While true, it's clearly a narrow take on a much broader problem that needs to be addressed. The 33-page report spends considerable time lauding the benefits of the city's aggressive tax abatement policy, saying it has been at the heart of the city's renaissance. Furthermore, the authors say, tax abatements should be continued on the waterfront - since "eliminating tax abatements Downtown now would likely impede any further development due to competition against existing developments that have tax abatements and the New York City market." This despite the fact that the authors (accurately) acknowledge the fact that city officials are not currently using any measurable criteria to evaluate and review the merits of tax abatement proposals. They suggest the city "better articulate the statutory criteria" in the future to combat the growing anger from city residents who fear they may pay the ultimate price. To this point, the report fails to address the potential impacts of the proliferation of tax abatements on residents across the city. The current policy exposes those without the coveted tax abatements to hikes in taxes, shielding others from such spikes and raising questions about exactly who benefits from the policy. To their credit, the authors don't ignore the obvious failure to include the city's minorities in the renaissance, urging city officials to adopt a policy that would link job creation to tax abatements, a move the city is already pursuing. "Unfortunately, specific segments of our population have benefited disproportionately from this development, as poverty and unemployment remain substantial problems," the authors wrote. I do not question the expertise of the authors, but it was disappointing to see language in the report that suggests they were also playing the role as cheerleader. For example, the report describes the mayor's call for more police as "admirable." While it may be, such comments only serve to discredit the legitimacy of the authors and are better left to the people who funded the report to decide: the taxpayers. Here's a summary of some of their other recommendations: [] The city should seek to extend the residency requirement for new police and firefighters beyond one year. In addition, the city should consider allocating a portion of affordable housing for these groups. [] The Port Authority owns "substantial" amounts of property in Jersey City, yet the city only receives $776,305 in taxes on the property. The city should seek to change this arrangement. [] Designate a high-level economic development executive to centralize coordination of all city economic development functions, including job creation and the marketing of the city. [] Add more police officers, demolish blighted buildings, and convert brownfields and vacant lots to new buildings and parks. [] Create more recurring revenue through a billboard tax and a realty transfer fee. Link to Renshaw's column on the NJ.com site
Posted on: 2007/2/28 8:09
|
|||
|
||||
|
JJ 2/28: Fireworks likely tonight at City Council's hearing on local hiring initiative
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Fireworks likely tonight at City Council's hearing on local hiring initiative
Wednesday, February 28, 2007 By KEN THORBOURNE JOURNAL STAFF WRITER A public hearing is scheduled tonight on Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah Healy's proposed "project labor agreement" aimed at getting more local residents work at construction sites in the city. The City Council hearing will be held at City Hall, 280 Grove St., as part of the council's 6 p.m. meeting. Healy's proposal calls for an apprentice program to be established with labor unions. On projects that cost $15 million or more, 20 percent of the workforce would have to be members of the apprentice program, according to the proposal. Led by Downtown Councilman Steven Fulop, several council members questioned at Monday's council caucus how certain aspects of the proposal would be monitored and carried out. Fulop questioned the ability of the city to hold developers accountable for what would be essentially a union program. Fulop and other council members said job fairs - one of the duties assigned the developers - should be carried out by the city, and room should be made for non-union workers as well. Ward F Councilwoman Viola Richardson objected to language in the agreement requiring developers to make a "good faith effort." She wanted stronger wording, she said. But "at the end of the day," said City Corporation Counsel Bill Matsikoudis, all that could be legally required of developers is their "best effort." Link to JJ article on NJ.com
Posted on: 2007/2/28 8:00
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Embankment- Update Thread
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Waiting on Embankment ruling
Wednesday, February 28, 2007 By COTTON DELO JOURNAL STAFF WRITER The fate of Downtown Jersey City's Sixth Street Embankment continues to hang in the balance, pending a decision by the federal Surface Transportation Board that had been expected by the end of last year. Long coveted by local activists for open space, the half-mile-long elevated stone structure and former rail freightway was sold by Conrail to developer Steve Hyman - who reportedly wants to raze it to build two-family houses - for $3 million in 2005. The STB will rule on whether the property was "legally abandoned" prior to the sale, and if not, the title would revert to Conrail, and Jersey City would get another crack at purchasing it. In an earlier step in the city's protracted legal battle to acquire the Embankment, state Superior Court Judge Maurice Gallipoli essentially upheld the sale while ruling with the developer in a case brought against him by the city in July. The STB decision would take precedence, however. According to Jennifer Meyer, president of the Embankment Preservation Coalition - the group that petitioned the STB in February 2006, along with the national Rails-to-Trails conservancy and Assemblyman Lou Manzo - a decision had been expected in late 2006. She expects the city to try to acquire the property through eminent domain if the decision goes against it. "We feel the city should be able to buy it whether the STB rules favorably or unfavorably," explained Meyer, who said her group's priority is to have the city acquire the site as quickly as possible. The coalition has conducted extensive fundraising of monies earmarked for open space, she said. But there's another potential use for the landmarked historic site. Mayor Jerramiah Healy laid out his vision for a new Light Rail spur connecting Secaucus Junction and Newport via the Bergen Arches and the Sixth Street Embankment in his State of the City address last week. The Light Rail spur is conceived as a complement to the creation of open space at the site, according to Jersey City Corporation Counsel Bill Matsikoudis. "In my view, such a plan would be the winner for everyone because you'd have park space plus the addition of mass transit that would take away the reliance on cars in the region," he said. In the event of an undesirable ruling by the STB, the mayor and the City Council would need to evaluate whether to pursue eminent domain, Matsikoudis said. Another recourse would be an appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. COTTON DELO can be reached at cdelo@jjournal.com Link to article on NJ.com
Posted on: 2007/2/28 7:50
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: So much for all of you folks who predicted a JC/NYC RE Crash
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Yeah, how conveniently you omit the fact that had you acted a year earlier, you'd have made $450K or possibly $500K instead of $400K.
Posted on: 2007/2/21 1:05
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: JJournal: Reservoir No. 3 will be preserved as open space
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
There's nothing better than a "I'm doing something, (i am assuming) you're doing nothing, therefore whatever i'm doing must be right" argument!
Posted on: 2007/2/16 20:01
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 111 First Street - the teardown
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
whiniest post of the year (and from the guy who a few posts up was complaining about name-calling!)
Posted on: 2007/2/16 4:40
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: JJournal: Reservoir No. 3 will be preserved as open space
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Let's hope I'm wrong, and Healy isn't using this as a way to justify giving the Embankment the Heisman... Politics is politics people, victories exist in isolation, and are just as often a harbinger of bad news as good (if not more so).
Posted on: 2007/2/15 21:22
|
|||
|
||||
|
JJ: Get a city job and store your vessel on public property.
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
http://www.nj.com/news/jjournal/jerse ... 17143610471130.xml&coll=3
His boat sat for 6 months, rent-free Wednesday, February 14, 2007 By JARRETT RENSHAW JOURNAL STAFF WRITER Do you have a boat and want a cheap place to store it? Here's a tip: Get a city job and store your vessel on public property. That's exactly what Jersey City Deputy Director of Recreation Frank Lorenzo has done for roughly the past six months - that is until The Jersey Journal inquired about it. Lorenzo said that a "friend of a friend" asked him if he could store the 20-foot sailboat on a lot he owned on Grand Street, where it stayed for roughly two years. Lorenzo said he charged no storage fees and lost contact of the owner of the boat. Roughly six months ago, Lorenzo sold the lot and had to find a place for the boat, so he decided to move it to a public parking lot at Cochrane Field. The property is owned by the Jersey City Board of Education, but it is leased to the city. "That's a big area, there's a lot of room," said Lorenzo. "That's what I thought when I did it." The Jersey Journal inquired about the sailboat, and few hours later Lorenzo was seen hitching the boat to his vehicle and moving the boat to a friend's house. Asked if it was fair to store a private boat on public property, Lorenzo would only say "I got a complaint, and I moved it." A spokesman for Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah Healy said that although the boat had been moved the mayor is "concerned" about the issue. "He is going to have the director look into the issue," said spokesman Stan Eason. "After he speaks to the director, he will take the appropriate steps." Lorenzo is a longtime political figure in the city, most recently working on the campaigns of Healy and former Ward E Councilman Junior Maldonado. Recreation Director Bob Hurley said he was aware of the boat, but assumed it belonged to one of the other governmental agencies that use the property, such as the Office of Emergency Management or the military.
Posted on: 2007/2/14 7:31
|
|||
|
||||
|
JJ: HIRE THE LOCALS! Healy: Tighten rules for builders
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
http://www.nj.com/news/jjournal/jerse ... 17143683271130.xml&coll=3
HIRE THE LOCALS Wednesday, February 14, 2007 By JARRETT RENSHAW JOURNAL STAFF WRITER Healy: Tighten rules for builders Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah Healy yesterday unveiled a new proposal aimed at including more residents in the city's booming construction market. The proposal would require developers who receive tax abatements to use union labor for private projects over $15 million, and public projects over $5 million; and establish an apprentice program aimed at getting more Jersey City residents, particularly minorities, onto local work sites. The proposal - which must get City Council approval - would require 20 percent of the work to be conducted by union apprentices, a program that teaches workers the techniques of the trade and is considered the first step into a well-paying union job. "I think it only fitting that the bulk of the workforce in the building and construction field, that has been the source of our city's renaissance, be directed at Jersey City residents," Healy yesterday told a crowd of more than 200 union members of various trades at a news conference at City Hall. The proposal is widely seen as an answer to critics of the city's tax abatement policy, which also has job creation as one of its goals but by most people's estimates has largely been unsuccessful. The current tax abatement contracts include language that calls for developers to show their "best-faith efforts" at hiring local residents and minorities. However, developers are only required to disclose to the city the race, sex and hometown of the workers on site, and doesn't include any penalties for not meeting the stated goals. This new proposal includes a much stronger bridge between residents and development projects. But city officials admit that if developers show they have made the required attempts, they will not be held accountable for not meeting the 20 percent goal. Some of the requirements included in the proposal are: Developers and union officials meet with city officials 90 days prior to the start of construction in order to lay out how they plan to fulfill the requirements of the ordinance. That the city notify the Jersey City Board of Education, the Jersey City Employment and Training Program and the Jersey City Housing Authority of the availability of apprenticeships prior to construction. That the developer advertise the apprenticeship jobs in two local newspapers. That the developer and the union hold at least two job fairs at a location to be provided by the city. Union representatives' attendance yesterday was noteworthy since it was the unions that fought and defeated Jersey City's previous attempt at instituting a quota system.
Posted on: 2007/2/14 7:29
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Affordable housing groups to get help in putting projects together
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
never said the 'luxury' hi-rises were cages. sf/human ratio is dramatically different. also never said they were ugly on the inside. not my style, but most of them 'look' fancy on the inside. (though the housing projects from the 70's being torn down all around the area are better constructed). and i know plenty of 'rich' people who act like animals. ever met the 'president' of the Newport Waterfront Association?
Posted on: 2007/1/31 17:17
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Affordable housing groups to get help in putting projects together
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Yeah i, too, found the word 'projects' in the title an unfortunate choice...
i think (hopefully) people have learned from the mistakes of the past, that if you put people in cages like animals, they will act like them. Most affordable-housing built these days is lower density, low-rise, such as the Lafayette Village houses on Grand Street towards communipaw. I love the irony - 20-30 years ago, the rich lived in low-rise houses, and the poor lived in ugly towers. Now, the 'rich' of jersey city live in ugly hi-rises, and the poor have houses with roofs and lawns and trees. Turnabout is totally fair play.
Posted on: 2007/1/31 16:25
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New 5 story 30 unit building with 30 underground parking spaces proposed for Monmouth & Newark A
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
And I would think that if the best endorsement of a tattoo parlour is that it is regulated by the department of health, that doesn't make for a great recommendation.
Here's a more local example: The MET Grocery Store on West Side Avenue, that was shut down by the Department of health a few weeks ago. Wonder how long it had been selling unrefrigerated dairy products and meat covered in rodent feces before the shut down? http://jclist.com/modules/newbb/viewt ... t_id=89132#forumpost89132 Quote:
Posted on: 2007/1/30 21:35
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New 5 story 30 unit building with 30 underground parking spaces proposed for Monmouth & Newark A
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
So has Baker Boys.
Posted on: 2007/1/30 20:51
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New 5 story 30 unit building with 30 underground parking spaces proposed for Monmouth & Newark A
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
i hear taco bell is subject to board of health regulations, too. and look how well that turned out!
Posted on: 2007/1/30 20:32
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer Pay-to-Play Press Release- Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I appreciate your posts, Althea. I think you're misunderstanding where I'm coming from, but I'm not exactly understanding how. Please elaborate on this 'game' i'm playing. Because your measured analysis of the council meeting process, IMHO, seems equally susceptible to an accusation of equivocation. All I've tried to say in my various posts on various threads about the Fulop phenomena is BEWARE. I've never suggested he does a bad job for his constitutents, or that he is fundamentally bad for this City (nor have i suggested that he's fundamentally 'good' for it either - the jury is still out on that one). But when the level of discourse about any politician is as one-sided as it is on here about Fulop ("hail the conquering hero!"), or on the NWA for that matter (crazy people think Fulop is evil; therefore he must be doing something right!), my spider-sense starts tingling. When people stop considering opposite sides, or write off contrary accusations against 'their guy' without giving themselves a moment to play devil's advocate and work out the countering scenario in their heads, people get conned. 9 times out of 10. Is Fulop the 1? Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. But determine that for yourself, not because Dan Levin or BrightMoment told you to. ErinMaiden said it well in this or another thread - do your own research, form your own opinion, and don't simply sign off any elected official just because the very vocal consensus thinks he's all puppies and daiseys. P.S. - the above is in no way a swipe at DanL or BM, they were examples that came to mind of outspoken community activists. There is absolutely nothing wrong with campaigning within a community around an issue you believe in, and i take no issue with their work.
Posted on: 2007/1/25 20:52
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer Pay-to-Play Press Release- Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Your candor, both about your work and about the political game, is appreciated, Councilman Fulop.
As somebody who does not live in your Ward, I will be the first to admit that I have less of an opportunity to witness your interactions with your constituents first-hand. From what I can glean, I think you have a keen and healthy understanding of how politics works, both in the abstract, ideal sense, as well as in the down and dirty, real-life sense. That's not a criticism, it's a compliment, and people who react to it as criticism don't understand politics. I agree with the sentiment that sunlight is good cleanser, but also believe that the best source of political sunlight is an earnest attempt to achieve the desired outcome, including all requisite pride-swallowing. If the inevitable outcome of the pay-to-play ordinance was that it was doomed to fail regardless of how it was introduced, I would feel a lot better about the 'cleansing' if it hadn't started with a press release and a divisive call-to-arms. If it's doomed to end up DOA, why not let your opponents be the first ones to dirty their hands. Politics is politics, but sometimes, I think the high road is the smarter, and maybe even more strategic, road to take. There's nothing I like more than being proven wrong, so please, give me cause to eat my cynical words.
Posted on: 2007/1/25 18:04
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We Will Remember! Pay to play voted down
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Your outrage is understandable, and equivocating politicians absolutely deserve to be exposed. No argument about that. I do, however, think that it's irresponsible to use quotation marks when attributing inflammatory language to any public official, when they in fact never used such language. If you want to quote, then do it accurately. If you paraphrase, tell people you're doing so, and don't use quotes.
Posted on: 2007/1/25 16:00
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Greenville and West Side: Planning aims to save large Victorian homes - by increasing min. lot s
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
What about the other zoning ordinance on the table, revising the set-back requirements? Any word on whether that passed? Didn't see it mentioned in the article.
Posted on: 2007/1/25 15:33
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We Will Remember! Pay to play voted down
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
presumptuous? from the guy who presumed i was a woman and got prickly when he was called on it? and i never said i was refering to you.
Posted on: 2007/1/25 3:57
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We Will Remember! Pay to play voted down
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I have no particular beef with Fulop, any more than I have with any other politician. I'm not even suggesting that he's inherently bad for his Ward or bad for Jersey City. It just seems that the Fulop love-fest around here almost never gets tempered by any counterpoint. To me, the political advantageousness of the pay-to-play ordinance debacle seems glaringly obvious as long-term strategy for Fulop. To his credit, it's brilliant strategy, and if this board is any indicator, it just might work for him. Until this episode, I had a more-favorable-than-usual impression of Councilman Fulop. As soon as that press release went out, my eyebrows raised up. For me, the jury is still out on his overall integrity and ambition, but it shocks me that around these parts, he's jesus and santa claus combined. i think people should always question politicians' motives, and the hyper-defensive reactions i get when merely suggesting he could be using this issue to politicial advantage are shocking.
Posted on: 2007/1/25 3:54
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We Will Remember! Pay to play voted down
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Self-proclaimed, baby. I'll take being a miserable cynic over a content fool anyday.
Posted on: 2007/1/25 3:37
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We Will Remember! Pay to play voted down
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
and sometimes a politician is just a politician.
Posted on: 2007/1/25 3:26
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We Will Remember! Pay to play voted down
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I'm reluctant to give *any* politician even a little credit. i'd be less reluctant to cut Fulop some slack if his hands were "clean" when it came to developer political contributions. But they're not. i'd also give Fulop some credit if he had engaged the corporation counsel's office in drafting and introducing legislation, and worked with the council in a spirit of co-operation. I think this could have been handled much more gracefully, but Fulop came out swinging. You're right, Ethan: Fulop made the councilpeople look bad. Congratulations to him for achieving his objective. Had his objective been to actually reform the practice of pay-to-play in this town, and had he conducted his bahavior surrounding this ordinance in accord with genuinely trying to achieve that objective, maybe the outcome would have been different. we'll never know. but you can bet your ass this 'defeat' will be at the center of the Fulop Mayoral campaign. sad as it may be, politicians are guilty until proven innocent in my book. i grew up in this town, and i've witnessed enough in my lifetime. and i distrust local, home-grown politicians just as much as i do the nouveau transplanted ones. I'm an equal opportunity skeptic. mark my words in the above-referenced post come the next mayoral election cycle.
Posted on: 2007/1/25 3:20
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer Pay-to-Play Press Release- Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
STEVE FULOP! (okay, what do i win?)
Posted on: 2007/1/25 2:37
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We Will Remember! Pay to play voted down
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I can't help but think this outcome wasn't entirely unforeseen by Councilman Fulop. And that the objective wasn't as much to pass the proposed ordinance, but to martyr himself and deposit the PR from this into the campaign bank. He's smart enough to know that introducing the ordinance as confrontationally and combatively as he did was going to doom its chances of passing among his fellow councilpersons.
So, in the end, he gets to be the hero/martyr for going out on a "limb" and raising the people's cause which he knew wouldn't pass, (and getting plenty of PR for it), yet he still gets to accept campaign contributions from developers for his future political battles. He'll be putting his money where his mouth is if he refuses to accept political campaign contributions from developers on principle, despite the failure of this ordinance. Then i'll give him some credit. Well played, Councilman. Well played. You'll fit in here juuuuust fine.
Posted on: 2007/1/25 2:27
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer Pay-to-Play Press Release- Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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
|
|||
|
||||