The below article in today's Jersey Journal frames the importance of this election. To me it is really not about Epps at all as he is a nice guy personally, it is about putting people on the board that think big while not losing site of the small daily issues. It is about Jersey City entering the education reform conversation and setting a standard that other cities want to replicate. It is about exploring do we have the best leadership that we can today and are we doing all we can to make the city achieve what we deserve. With the performance of the schools as it is, there is no reason that any leader should be given a blanket new contract without even looking what is out there as a possibility.

The below article was printed today, the same day the Star Ledger highlighted the final two candidates that Newark is exploring to lead the schools there. These are people with gravitas and willingness to put schools first. These are people willing to come from the other side of the country to lead a school district like we have here. Jersey City should be a part of this conversation for our city with leaders who are willing to deal with tough issues. We should not accept mediocrity.

I know there are many good candidates running but I know that Marvin, Carol and Sue if on that board will have a big impact in a short period of time. There are lots of criteria for candidates and I see arguments here about who is a current parent, who has what backing, who did what at the debates all valid but in the end the one criteria that matters is who will be the best agent for progress. There are no guarantees but I know that there is risk of dividing votes here and opening the door for others - it is a real concern.

Please take some time over the next few days to learn about the candidates as this election is important. I am not asking you to trust me blindly but I do feel that Carol Marvin and Sue are the best choices and if you do research you will see why I am so passionate about their candidacy. This election does matter and has huge importance for shaping the city. I personally am passionate about this issue because getting the schools right is the backbone of impacting so many other aspects of the city from jobs, to taxes to crime. Obviously, I couldnt be sticking my neck out there further on this election and there is political risk for that but I dont regret it because the stakes are high and the opportunity for the city is great.

Please vote 2a,5a, 10a... Carol, Marvin and Sue. Article below from today's Jersey Journal

---------

With anti-Epps councilman backing 3 candidates for Jersey City Board of Education, superintendent's future may hinge on Tuesday's election results
Friday, April 22, 2011
By TERRENCE T. McDONALD
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER
Next week's Jersey City Board of Education election could result in a dramatic shift of power on the school board, with 10 candidates vying for the three seats up for grabs on the nine-member board.

Downtown Jersey City Councilman Steven Fulop has thrown his political weight behind three of the candidates - including one incumbent, Suzanne Mack - in hopes of controlling the majority of seats on the board.

At least one of the Fulop-backed candidates - Carol Harrison-Arnold - has called for a nationwide search for a new schools chief to replace Superintendent Charles T. Epps Jr.

Epps' contract expires this year, and a new, three-year contract approved by the board last year is in legal limbo.

A group of residents, including Fulop, has challenged the new contract on the grounds that the board did not properly advertise the meeting at which it approved the pact. An administrative law judge is expected to make a ruling on the challenge next month.

Epps is concerned about the Fulop factor in this year's school board races, according to a board member who asked not to be identified.

"He's afraid of Fulop," the board member said.

Fulop, who laughed when told the board member's observation, has made no secret of the fact he wants Epps gone.

"The schools are failing and mediocrity is not acceptable," Fulop said.

Last year, Fulop backed three candidates - Carol Lester, Sterling Waterman, and an incumbent, Angel Valentin - who won handily.

This year, he is supporting board vice president Mack, Harrison-Arnold, who is an attorney, and Marvin Adames, the chief municipal prosecutor in Newark.

The Jersey City Education Association union has endorsed the same trio, who have produced a slick television commercial thanks to a nearly $8,000 in-kind contribution from Jersey City-based Oh 7 Films and ICBA Inc.

Fulop's interest in the race isn't sitting well with current board member Frances O. Thompson, who is seeking her second term.

According to Thompson, the Fulop ticket supports vouchers, a claim the three candidates deny.

"Vouchers would automatically take funds from the public school district," she said.

Thompson is touting her support from Mayor Jerramiah Healy, who is also endorsing Mack and newcomer Aury Nunez.

In an email, Healy said he supports the two incumbents because they have been "tremendous assets" to the board.

With Nunez, "this team brings a wealth of knowledge, years of community involvement and a strong commitment to all of Jersey City's children," Healy said.

Asked whether Epps' job is in jeopardy if Fulop's ticket sweeps next Wednesday, Thompson said: "The possibility could be great."

Just a reminder. Reposting

Six days before the election, on April 21st, there will be an education-reform fundraiser at Zeppelin Hall in Jersey City to support Marvin, Carol, and Sue. It is a low dollar event with sugested contribution $20

We will be joined by two special guests: Anibal Ramos and Shavar Jeffries, who are at the forefront of education reform in New Jersey. t is rare that these gentlemen appear at a joint event outside their own city of Newark. They are doing it on April 21st to make sure Newark can soon have, in Jersey City, a partner in in pushing the urban education conversation in New Jersey.

I am hopeful you can join us for this special event.

Ecinjc

It is great to see you so involved. Here is what I can share additionally to your post and my feelings on Marvin specifically.



Firstly, I can really only speak from personal perspective on dealing with the BOE, what I think would be helpful from where I sit on the city council, and specific tools that I think a person should bring to any board. This is undoubtedly going to be different than someone who is looking at some of the issues discussed here (time frame of living in the city, or if they are on a PTO, or even if they are registered to vote as criteria). I can tell you from personal experience that when I was a candidate for the city council every single one of those issues were brought up about me (whether true/valid or not). While those are decent enough indicators on how someone may do they are not 100% accurate. If we use those as an indicator, sadly some of the best talent may slip through.



On Marvin specifically as part of our team I would like to share some perspective from my interaction with him. Our team?s goal was never to revamp the schools on the fringes or to take the approach of lets be slow with progress. They are failing today. The schools are at the core of issues plaguing the city whether it is crime or taxes or employment, and we were looking for people that think that way. We are looking for people that think big, have big ideas and have transformational ability on that board to give a transformational education experience. We wanted people who will be vocal, set an agenda, communicate the agenda, and whether the majority agrees/disagrees today, they have the ability to be relentless until it is achieved. I can tell you with 100% certainty Marvin fits that criteria. None of the issues that we face on the council or BOE are rocket science. I am certain that most candidates can grasp the basics and learn fairly quickly what they didn?t know already on structure.

I have been more involved in education issues in the city than any of my colleagues on the council or mayor, and based on interactions with current BOE members I have an idea what would be helpful. This education issue is one that I am passionate about. I can tell you unequivocally that if he gets on that board, Marvin Adames is going to be a star. He is going to be a role model to students, an example to fellow board members, and an inspiration to future leaders. I believe this with conviction

Last year, I wouldn't have written the above about all three candidates. As a matter of fact, I was vocal on where I thought the weakest link was but we were working from within a pool of candidates that had filed. Today is a different circumstance as we started early in candidate selection and have tightened the process 10 fold. For me, as the guy who has staked some credibility on Marvin, I honestly feel as comfortable today as when the process started.

@Downtown

I appreciate the healthy skepticism on political dynamics and you are absolutely right and I wouldn?t change a thing. We got the budget last week arriving at the caucus before the council meeting. There was literally no time to review it as that was their intention. It is a very large document, but in the subsequent days to that meeting I did ask the administration these exact questions which was ignored. It leaves little choice and knowing that the administration will ignore/mischaracterize deliberately the situation ? of course the timing from my standpoint is intentional when I would post this. It is today that this info would be most relevant. So you know, I had several recommendations for them to consolidate and cut but there wasn?t the political will from their side. Your assumptions are actually accurate and again I wouldn?t change a thing



@Riaz

It is absolutely not as you wrote ?how you interpret the numbers?. This is Bernie Madoff accounting and there is nothing stable about this budget. It is not the same as if the mayor is saying ?there is no tax increase? or that ?taxes are flat?. One is an opinion and one is a fact. I will show you later when I see you at the council meeting the math that doesn?t add up . Again, it is Bernie Madoff accounting and again this does not assume a property sale that they factored in which is far from closed.



@Dan

I disagree with you on this and you will see that later in the year assuming everything stays the same I contend that you will see a tax increase regardless. The math is what the math is. Any which way one breaks down the budget, the end result is that there is an increase in the amount to be raised by taxation that hasn?t been paid. If you would like you can call me and I am happy to walk you through that.

Just keeping the public informed of a letter and attachment I sent to the administration earlier this afternoon. The attachment is here and the letter is pasted below.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Mayor Healy, Rosemary, and Jack

I had the chance to review the budget that the administration presented and I have some serious questions that I hope you can address tomorrow at the State of the City. To any reasonable person reviewing what you presented to the taxpayers at the caucus, what you stated to the residents clearly points to the fact that the administration was disingenuous at best and potentially downright untruthful with regard to taxes. The mayor stood at the caucus two weeks ago and handed a document accompanied with an untruthful press release sent out the following day characterizing "stable taxes? or as the mayor stated "no municipal tax increase this year". As any reasonable person reviews the numbers you presented this is just not an accurate statement. (review attachment from your budget)

What we can all agree to be factual are the numbers that the mayor is proposing in the document as presented. Just because you shift the billing around in such a way that the increase in your bill doesn't come at the same point in time of the budget year as it did the previous year is not the same as having stable taxes. You are making the claim that this budget is delivering "stable taxes" which is one factor that families in this city use to budget for their households. Misrepresenting this is dangerous. The budget you presented shows that proposed taxes for 2011 will increase more than 13% over the previous full-year budget. Regardless of when you choose to do it, taxes will have to increase significantly at some point in 2011 to raise the revenue you?ve budgeted. There is nothing "stable" about that.

I have taken the time to attach a spreadsheet to clearly illustrate my point. These numbers are taken directly out of the mayor's budget. The last full budget year was FY 2010 (column C). From any fair budgeting standpoint to tax payers the last full administration year of budgeting is the most accurate comparison to the next full budget year (column F as mayor proposed at the last caucus). That difference represents a very substantial tax increase ? 13%! - there is no other way to look at it. Even if one wanted to stretch budgetary practices and annualize what the administration used as "transition year budget" ? the current run rate for taxes - it still represents a substantial 7% tax increase if you annualize those 6 months.

The only conceivable way your statement of ?stable taxes? could be remotely true is if we put together a fictional tax year combining the second half of fiscal 2010 and the transition year. But for that to be true, there would have needed to be a massive tax bill in the second half of fiscal 2010 and a large DECREASE for the transition year ? and we know there have been no tax decreases. I am pointing this out in a broad manner to shed light on something that impacts people and goes to the heart of trust between the mayor and the council and tax payers. It hinders any working relationship going forward if anything the mayor states must be questioned as to whether it is true.

For the administration to represent that taxes are stable by fictionalizing history in such a selective way where half of one budget year and half of an entirely different budget year ? and even then misrepresenting the outcome - is an absolute farce and has the risk of blindsiding residents when the tax increase arrives.

I am happy to discuss at the caucus and I hope it can be clarified at the state of the city tomorrow

Steven

BTW, for those of you that don?t know Sue Mack, she is been on the board for 5 terms and running for her 6th. She is often an only vote their of reasonability. She has been a tireless advocate for special needs children as she herself is the parent of child that required special needs. She is responsive to the community and a professional

I just want to share with you some information on the Board of Education upcoming election this April. It is a hugely important race as the majority balance of the board will be based on this election. Last year our team swept all three seats with Carol/Sterling/Angel breaking every BOE election turnout record in the history of the city and our hope that this year we will change the dynamics to meaningfully start to look towards education reform. I am very proud and excited about the three candidates we have and I am even more excited about how they were selected. My hope is that you will have the chance to meet them all (if you have not already) and consider lending your support


The process for candidate selection: I wanted to change the political dynamic whereas most teams throughout Jersey City are selected by a politician/political bosses that ?select? his/her favorite candidate and then people follow. I wanted to change this and create a bottom up approach that the selection comes from the community with the ONLY criteria being smart capable dynamic people that are in this for no political gain but rather to meaningfully change the schools. So.. it was quite clear to the 60 volunteers from last year?s election which volunteers did the most work on the campaign for Sterling/Carol/Angel.. It is no surprise that the people who did the most work were actually parents with children in the schools that were working on the campaign for the right reasons. So this year? I pledged that I would support the direction of the team. A Committee of 10 community people that did the most in last years election- mostly parents (many on this board) created a questionnaire and then an interview process for any potential candidate. We have close to 15 responses of people wanting to run and some of the responses were up to 25 pages long as it relates to plans for the schools. The committee then interviewed as a whole each candidate and selected the three that they thought would be best for this year. I will say it was terrific group overall


Last night we had a kick off for our team and nearly 200 people attended at Zeppelin Hall. I couldn?t be more excited about the three candidates I am working for in this election. It is a diverse group from across the city with common thread of all being very capable and extremely bright. While I am sure you will have the chance in meet and greets/conversations to really get an idea for views I figure I would post some basic info on each. While nobody will ever agree with every candidate 100% of the time I think we have some great talent that we are working for to get elected


Marvin Adames ? Head Prosecutor for City of Newark appointed by Mayor Booker, 20 month year old son that will be attending JC school system. Rutgers Law School, College of NJ Undergrad, Grew up in a very tough environment originally from the south ward of Newark. Come terrific non for profit volunteer work in mentoring


Carol Harrison-Arnold ? Graduate NYU undergrad, University of Virginia Law School, Former President Lincoln High School PTO, HS Chair Hoboken Charter School, President Monticello Community Development, Director Jersey City Episcopal, 2007 Jersey Journal ?Everyday Hero?,


Sue Mack ? Most of you know of course and needs little introduction?

This election is important to say the least and I couldn?t be more excited about the future

- Steve

It has come to my attention that all of the trees along Christopher Columbus drive will need to be removed for the CC Drive streetscape project. This is approxiamtely from Monmouth to Warren.

The reason for removing these trees is that there are many vaults underneath the tree that will need to be removed. Currently the roots are growing around them and during the removal of the vaults the trees will be injured, thus they must be removed if this is the case.

While this is a long awaited project, by law the removal of three or more trees must be preceeded by a public meeting pursuant the Open Public Meetings Act. This will require 2 weeks public notice of the meeting.

While the delay of 2-3 weeks is regrettable, so is the loss of these trees. I believe that this law exists as it is only right the community is involved and aware of the actions of its government and provided with the full reason behind the removal of our trees.

Our office will be pushing for this public meeting as is our duty to protect the rights of my constituents and this is the law.

Steve

? 321-3.1. - Removal of trees due to public improvements. [Added 6-27-01 by Ord. No. 01-082]

A. Prior to the removal of three (3) or more trees in the public right-of-way by the City or its agent in order to facilitate the repair or installation of any public improvements, including but not limited to sewers, water mains, roads or sidewalks, the Director of the Department of Public Works shall convene a hearing to determine whether or not the City is in compliance with ? 321-3(A&F).

B. The hearing shall be held by a committee comprised of three members, the Mayor or his designee, who shall serve as chairperson, the council member representing the ward in which the projected is located and a City resident, who shall be selected by the Director. The committee shall solicit information from the Director of the Division of Parks Maintenance or other landscaping professional.

C. The Director shall provide notice of the time and place of the committee meeting to the public pursuant to the Open Public Meetings Act. Within ten (10) days of holding its hearing, the committee shall provide a written decision to the Director of Public Works.

Some of you may have noticed that in this week's Reporter, there is a printed version of the Ward E Quarterly Council Newsletter that our council team works to put out to update the ward on happenings.

This printed version is our first attempt at a printed insert but we would welcome any feedback if possible on how we can improve this version going forward (for certain there are opinons on JCLIST).

Our council team is now four people strong which expands our resources.

If you have suggestions please let us know
Sincerely,
Steve

I urge you to take a quick look at the attached video link on the homepage at www.stevenfulop.com. It?s a one minute video from the anti-corruption rally in front of City Hall that we organized in August. We were moved by the strong show of community support for that event. But that was only a start. We need to build on the momentum established at that event; the next few weeks will be crucial.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTO-3E ... ture=player_embedded#t=76

On Wednesday, September 9th at 6pm in City Hall, the council will be voting on the Redeveloper Pay-to-Play ordinance that I sponsored at the last council meeting. Prior to the meeting on September 9th there will be another important community rally. This is not a political rally with former candidates or elected officials speaking but the goal is a community rally to enter city hall in strong numbers and unified.

The ordinance to be voted on during the September 9th meeting is similar to the one I sponsored two years ago. As you may recall, at that time it didn?t even pass introduction required for a final vote. The ordinance would prohibit designated developers from contributing to politicians during the time that they are benefiting from favorable financial considerations from the city.

While the council and mayor flatly opposed the version of the ordinance presented two years ago, the climate has clearly changed. In August, after many Jersey City individuals were arrested on corruption charges related to this very issue, the council unanimously approved the introduction of the ordinance. However, there still seems to be resistance from some elected officials. Their fear is justified; this ordinance would stand to change politics and fundraising, and send a message that the residents of Jersey City are more important than special interests.

Your presence on September 9th will make a strong impression on the council as it deliberates on this important measure. This is a second and final reading, and discussion will be open to the public. A large audience with many residents speaking out in favor of the ordinance is the best way to let the council know how important this measure is to you.

Please come out on the 9th for both the rally and council meeting to let your voice be heard!

Sincerely
Steven Fulop

The info below is direct from the Director's office of Jersey City Housing Economic Development and Commerce written by a Deputy Director.

-----

The Existing abatement is a 20 year tax abatement at 16% of gross revenue. They will change the agreement to 30 years at 11% for the first 5 years, 13% for the next 5 years, and then back to 16%.

The project has not lowered sale prices.

Thanks for posting T-Bird.

Yes this outrageous on so many different levels. We received the recommendation last week before the council and I will post the details in the next post on jclist. In many ways the issues of the last few weeks is part of a larger problem which is the mentality of "business as usual" - regardless of circumstance. This is at the core of what needs to change.

----------------
Councilman Fulop Slams New Abatement Recommendation from Mariano Vega?s Tax Abatement Committee

(Jersey City- Thursday, July 30, 2009): The Healy administration has forwarded a recommendation for yet another sweetheart tax abatement deal for the project at 77 Hudson. This is coming on the heels of an 11.25% citywide property tax increase, a controversial Tax abatement to bail out a developer with slow sales and the arrest of seven key members of this administration including Deputy Mayor Beldini and Council President Mariano Vega.

?This is a situation remarkably similar to Crystal Pointe (council vote 6-3) where I warned that if the Healy Administration with Councilman Vega at the helm of this committee, bails out one developer, every single developer will ask for the same.? Said Councilman Fulop. ?The Healy Team, including Councilman Vega, needs to start putting the tax payers first because these big developer giveaways are getting out of control.?

The recommendation for 77 Hudson which is near completion, has an existing tax abatement subsidy to help the developer with sales.

Fulop added, ?Nowhere in the long term tax abatement law does it permit the use of a tax abatement to bail out slow sales. The Healy Team on the council and in the Mayor?s office has clearly not learned from the mistakes that caused 44 arrests last week, and continues to bail out their deep pocketed friends at the expense of taxpayers in Jersey City.

?This abatement recommendation needs to be scrapped and new hearings need to start that include transparency and public comments. The council supported my resolution yesterday for transparency in the tax abatement process and we call on the Mayor to include this abatement in that process,? concluded Fulop.

Apologies for the long post - I just wanted to share with you my thoughts that I will voice tomorrow at the council meeting as I recognize many of you cannot attend.

I haven?t called for Mayor Healy?s resignation for the reason that while I know it would be politically expedient to do so, and that I probably could benefit from putting pressure on the Mayor personally more than most others in the city, and although many supporters have encouraged the pressure for a resignation, I sincerely feel it is not the fair, reasonable, or just thing to do.

While this past week is certainly shameful for the city the reality is that if we put personal feelings aside about Mayor Healy, he hasn?t been arrested. The fair thing is to respect the authorities that have more facts than any of us to date of whom chose not to arrest him. If new information were to arise that changes this, I will be the first to point out that he needs to go, but today I feel it is not fair to do. The reality is that none of these issues are simple despite what we see or read. While you give people the benefit of the doubt that have been close to you that they act always in a positive way, in reality we all know that all of us are flawed, and we never know what all people do all of the time around us. The same can apply to Mayor Healy. I would hope mistakes don?t happen in the way that many are accused, but certainly none of us are perfect. Politics aside, I know personally from Manzo, King, Vega, and even my opponent Catrillo, that often decent people make horrible choices. For Healy, while I am uncomfortable with the situation being so close to him, there is a process to follow and I respect the process since he hasn?t been arrested.

I don?t want to get lost in this post the message that I read with regards the ENTIRE ?Team Healy? and who should be ?thrown out?. I myself am a believer that there are no issues that have happened to any of the people involved in last week?s incident that can be defined in clear black or clear white as it relates to their past actions. There isn?t one person there who is pure evil but there are many people who potentially did a very immoral act in violation of the trust that they were given and should be penalized. Although, I didn?t run on their ticket, I share with many the knowledge of much of the good that those people have done in the past for the city.

For example, almost every single one of us that sit on the council (myself included) supported Louis Manzo when he ran for Assemblyman on the democratic ticket. Both elected and residents supported him (15k people many of which are reading this) because we thought the same that they thought in Trenton, that Assemblyman Manzo had a legislative track record that was strong. I will be the first to write Manzo?s character issues as defined today by last week are not so simply defined. Furthermore, when I look back, I believed and even contributed to Jim King because I knew that his civic association always put senior citizens first. My senior citizen constituent?s downtown would say that ?nobody treats seniors like Jim King?. However, in the end, if, what he is accused of doing is accurate - it is reprehensible and shameful beyond doubt to which I can?t explain the disconnect I feel towards him. In any event it is not simple to define. It is no different than Mariano Vega that shouldn?t be defined as a pure horrible individual by this resolution or the revelation this past week. The reality is that one can point to countless good deeds for this city over the past 20 years that he has done. However in the case that these allegations are true there should be severe actions that should be taken. My point is that none of these people should be painted with a clearly defined brush today that they are just terrible people at their core ? they should be penalized if true but there is a process to follow.

In the resolution tomorrow, the assumption as worded for Mariano Vega is innocence. That is what we would all want. The reality though is that while assumption of innocence is the standard in our personal lives the same standard does not apply to a role that is based on the public trust such as elected office. It is for this reason that we are asking for his resignation as he is the only elected official that was arrested. This resolution is amongst the most important that the council has voted on. It is neither political, nor grandstanding but rather the beginning of the process to hopefully eliminate some of your doubts as the government tries to move forward voting on issues that matter to you.

I hope that is helpful and much of this will be conveyed at the meeting
Sincerely
Steve

COUNCILMAN INTRODUCES TWO VEGA FOCUSED RESOLUTIONS FOR COUNCIL AGENDA

(Jersey City- Friday, July 24, 2009): At this week?s city council meeting scheduled for Wednesday July 29th, Councilman Fulop will present two resolutions before the city council. With the lone exception of Fulop, the council, led by Mariano Vega, was elected in May as part of ?Team Healy? and ran under the banner ?Change You Can See?.

The first resolution will be a no confidence vote asking the rest of the city council to support a formal request for the resignation of Councilman Mariano Vega. Fulop stated that ?while Mariano Vega deserves his day in court, the sheer scale and widespread nature of the allegations is an outrage to the people of our city. Vega?s every vote going forward will be tainted on the council. It is impossible at this point that Council President or the other indicted members of the Healy administration for that matter can adequately represent the people of Jersey City with this cloud of suspicion hanging over them.?

The Second Resolution will formally request that Mayor Healy amend his executive order regarding the closed - door abatement negotiation committee to which Healy appointed Mariano Vega as chairperson.

?In light of yesterday?s arrests, there is a cloud over these closed backroom meetings. The public is rightfully concerned about them. There has never been a more appropriate time for the mayor to open these meetings so the public can see how the city negotiates their tax dollars,? Fulop added.

# # # # #

I just wanted to share with you all my editorial that was published in today's Jersey Journal as it relates to illegal apartments in Jersey City.

Steven Fulop


IN THEIR OPINION
A better illegal apartments plan
Friday, June 05, 2009
By STEVEN FULOP

SPECIAL TO THE JOURNAL

Last week, Mayor Healy raised the issue of the city capitalizing financially on its sizable number of illegal apartments. This is a significant quality-of-life issue that has broad repercussions in terms of safety, public services, and potentially state and federal funding if these residents aren't being recorded. Although I prefer a different approach to resolving this problem than through the legalization of these illegal apartments, I am in complete agreement with the mayor that we need to address this all too frequent occurrence.

Illegal apartments affect their neighborhoods in a variety of ways. Since they typically lack a secondary exit or basic fire suppression equipment, such as sprinklers and smoke detectors, these apartments pose disproportionately high fire risks to their tenants, other occupants in the house, and neighboring structures. Additionally, given that illegal apartments increase the population of a neighborhood beyond the level for which it was planned and built, all residents in the neighborhood suffer from diminished services such as sewage, trash pickup, and the overall cleanliness of the area. Likewise, the scarcity of on-street parking in certain parts of the city is only made worse through the existence of illegal apartments.

The problem with the mayor's current proposal is that the worst offenders wouldn't choose to participate. What would likely happen with legalization for illegal apartment owners would be that owners of buildings most easily brought into compliance with building and safety codes would step forward. Owners of older buildings and those posing the greatest threat to public safety would abstain and their buildings would remain a threat to their neighbors. In this regard, a legalization program would do very little to resolve the very real dangers these apartments pose.

In the current economic environment, any potential source of new revenue for the city can be tempting. However, waiving long-standing procedures and codes in an attempt to generate revenue is fraught with fairness issues. If the illegal apartments are allowed to remain, what do we say to the person in the future who would like to divide their home into apartments and enjoy the same right?

If the mayor's objective is safety, we are not solving the problem since the worst violators won't be compliant. If the mayor's goal is to generate more revenue for the city, it is important to note that this can be done in connection with the Census without condoning prior illegal activity. In the last census in 2000, a PriceWaterhouseCoopers post-Census report indicated that Hudson County had the second highest rate of undercounting in the country, with an estimated 13,620 residents going unreported in that count. Since Jersey City represented roughly half of that total, the loss of state and federal aid amounted to more than $70 million, according to published estimates of $10,674 of state and federal aid lost per each uncounted person.

Currently, the city has very few people dedicated to next year's Census. By temporarily reassigning existing city employees to assist in the census-taking process, we can, in a cost-neutral way, gain a truer understanding of the scope of the illegal apartment problem and avoid the negative repercussions that would follow legalization.

This more patient approach would not only allow us to begin to address the mayor's concerns around determining the exact number of illegal apartments but also meet another of his goals by identifying a major source of revenue through correcting the census undercount.

In the meantime, we should be adding inspectors to find the worst illegal apartment offenders to ensure their safety as well as that of their neighbors. Increased safety, a large new source of recurring revenue and the resolution of a long-standing blight, all at minimal cost to the city; what's not to like?

STEVEN FULOP is the Jersey City councilman for Ward E, which is made up of mostly the Downtown section of the city.

?2009 Jersey Journal
? 2009 NJ.com All Rights Reserved.

I will have in the next few days a copy of the court order but in order to alleviate misinformation, my understanding is that the Mastiffs are being shipped out of state, initially to PA and eventually to new owners in CA.

The city's animal control officer indicated that all parties involved are fully aware of the history with regards to these two animals as is the animal control officers in the new destination.

I will have more information in the next few days but hopefully this wily serve to clarify this issue in some regard

Steve

I have included below the email that we sent yesterday based on information that we were able to put together. Hopefully it helps some of you who reached out to us for more clarity.

We sent the below email only to the people who asked me to keep them posted on information on this subject. If you would like to be added please send an email to my office and we will gladly include you for any future notifications

-----
Backflow preventer update 5/25/09

My office has received a number of emails that there is still much confusion over the issue backflow preventers. Several people have said they have reached out to the City administration, but either got no reply to their messages or are still confused. So my office has reached out to the Office of Construction Code (OCC) concerning the many letters your condo association has received pertaining to the need to register your backflow preventer and have it tested. I would like to share with you what the OCC advised us were the right steps to take in reporting to them by August 1, 2009.

I have set up simple steps to follow and hope that this will clarify everything. By working through steps 1-3 (or 4) you will be in compliance with the letter sent to you by the Office of Construction Code.

There may be further action asked of you after this. If this is the case and things are still not transparent, please reach out to my office again and I will help you interface with the governmental bodies involved by setting up another community meeting.

Sincerely,

Steven M. Fulop
Jersey City Councilman, Ward ?E?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As per conversations with the Office of Construction Code and the Municipal Utilities Authority:

The letter you received from the Office of Construction Code (OCC) only gives instructions on how to report to the OCC by AUGUST 1, 2009 whether you have a testable or non-testable backflow preventer. Since this was not clear in the original letter, I asked that the deadline be extended from May 1, 2009 for another 90 days making the new deadline August 1, 2009.

Note: This only applies to residential fire suppression systems or industrial properties. If you are a residential building without a fire suppression system, but have received this notice, please contact Joe Mazzone at the Office of Construction Code immediately at (201) 547-5055/5068 or jmazzone@jcnj.org to let them know and they will remove you from the list of properties required to register.

Step 1: (OPTIONAL) Contact the MUA (Municipal Utilities Authority) at (201) 432-1150 and make an appointment for one of their inspectors to come out to your building. This is a free of charge service being offered by the MUA to give you the background and tell you what you need to install, if anything. This is an optional service being offered by the MUA to give you extra knowledge in the whole compliance process that your certified inspector might not know if they aren?t familiar with Jersey City.

Step 2: Contact a certified backflow inspector. Here is a list to choose from http://www.newwa.org/PDF/BF%20NJ%20Testers%20List%20Feb%2009.pdf. There are five on this list that are located right in Jersey City. You (or condo board in the case of condominiums) will pay a fee for an inspector to come out and inspect your backflow preventer.

*****Whether testable or not, you must hand in your completed form along with your notice of violation and documentation from the inspector by August 1, 2009.

Step 3: If the backflow preventer is testable, the inspector will test the device and hand you a document so stating. It is then your responsibility to mail this document and the filled out form you find here: http://www.jcmua.com/PDF%27s/backflow_test_form.pdf along with the letter of violation to:

Joe Mazzone, Plumbing Subcode Official
30 Montgomery Street
Room 412 (Main Office)
Jersey City, NJ 07302

Note: If your backflow preventer is testable and has passed inspection then after the OCC receives your letter with the registration fee, you are only responsible for maintaining the system by having it tested annually.

Step 4: IF your backflow preventer is NOT TESTABLE, then you will receive a document from the certified inspector so stating. It is then your responsibility to mail this document and the filled out form you find here: http://www.jcmua.com/PDF%27s/backflow_test_form.pdf along with the letter of violation to:

Joe Mazzone, Plumbing Subcode Official
30 Montgomery Street
Room 412 (Main Office)
Jersey City, NJ 07302

The OCC will abate the violation, and then send the information to Jersey City Water Division to the attention of city engineer, Tony Lombardi . At that time Mr. Lombardi will notify the owner and take it from there.

Sara
While I recognize this is your first post on jclist, you can certainly reach out to my office via email/phone or any of the other council people, or the mayor's office who is the only branch of government that has direct oversight of personell per the Faulkner Act. it tends to be a better way then JCLIST postings.

I am out of town for the weekend but per your point I wanted to let you know that the HPNA leadership reached out to me early this morning and we were able to have the appropriate people get to Enos Jones today and solve this problem and clean up the trash bins that I was told were opened and all over Enos Jones. I obviously cant see it for myself but the Mayor's Chief of Staff was helpful in this.

With regards to the park space I wanted to update you as well.I am sure you are aware that we have worked with the HPNA and administration and have a solution which I believe was posted in other posts on this topic. In addition, I am sure you will be satisfied to know that we are working with the dog owner community and are VERY close to solving for a temp dog run closer to Hamilton Park that is acceptable to the community of dog owners. We should have thsi resolved I think this week as I recognize that while teh park renovation is great it does contribute to the shortage of open space.

I hope this helps and have a great memorial day weekend
Steve

Through the campaign, I have tried to stay away from the politics of JCList as we have tried to take the approach not engaging in politically motivated posts however, this is an issue that is important to the ward and important to me personally.

My support of the Embankment preservation as open space is something that I feel my record speaks clearly too.

1) Over the last 4 years my track record in supporting the preservation of open space is without blemish on legislative initiatives. Furthermore, I can say that I have been amongst the largest advocates and most vocal supporter at every juncture when funding is necessary from the council to secure the preservation of the embankment. Often the other members of the council push back but the record kept by the city clerk is very clear on this. I would urge anyone who has question to view the voting records on this and the dialog amongst council members.

2) I have been the ONLY member of the council or administration to submit formal comments to the Surface Transportation Board in support of the embankment coalition to date. Again, this is public record for anyone who has questions to view

3) Over the past 4 years, I have been the only member of the council to proactively sponsor legislation to protect the embankment via abandonment checklist process that the developer fought in court and spent $250k to defeat.

4) When the administration changed their view from complete open space to lightrail/small open space on the embankment, I was the ONLY councilperson to stand firm that complete open space is the best option

If there are questions on any of these points, I would urge posters to view the records or ask the board of the EPC.

Although, the political season is in full swing with misinformation, I thank those who started this thread as it has given me the opportunity to speak to the facts and the record here on an issue that is important to me and the city. Over the next four years, I will continue to be the strongest independent voice on the council as am advocate for the EPC and open space.

Sincerely
Steven Fulop

Our council office has received several questions about the Backflow Preventor installation policy that some residents were notified of recently.

I will send out an email this week notifying residents, however for those that don?t get my email notifications on JCLIST, I have arranged an informational session for those concerned to take place in the City Hall Caucus room on March 30th at 630pm. We have confirmed that the MUA and Construction office will both attend to answer questions and explain the policy in detail.

please email me at fulops@jcnj.org should you have any specific questions you would like me pass on before the meeting to those two departments

Sincerely
Steven Fulop
Councilman Ward "E"

Clearly the political season has started early and in the effort of not letting a misrepresentation of the facts continue I guess I?ll be responding when possible.. As a side note though, if anyone has sincere questions I am happy to answer.

To be perfectly clear, my plan this May is to run for re-election not on promises but on my record and performance. I am absolutely ready for that dialog whether here or in debates. The argument that is referenced ?I don?t play well with others and thus have made the ward weaker? is what I believe couldn?t be a further mischaracterization as it relates to the ward. When you look at the facts it is a difficult argument to make because in reality we have had more roads paved downtown than elsewhere in the city, we have had more park renovation/investment than any other part of the city, our council office has sponsored/written and passed more proactive quality of life legislation than any other council office, and we have strived as hard as we can to lift the level of constituent services to the level that I would hope would be in a private sector type environment with a responsive problem solving approach with the resources given. Of course, mistakes will be part of the dialog in the campaign but this particular argument I needed to clarify.

Per the other point, sure you may read about some losing votes that I have had and it is frustrating for certain. However, if someone wants to make the argument that because I don?t vote for a waterfront tax abatement and lose 7-2 when the mayor is advocating for approval, or that I lose 8-1 when I believe we should be in a hiring freeze, or that the integrity of the arts district is important, well that is just beliefs I have that I won?t change for the sake of conforming so that I could have been on the winning side of a vote. Would it have been better if I went along with these votes so I can be on the winning end of a vote that I or many of our constituents don?t agree with? That?s just not what I believe.

When I look back over the past four years I put countless hours into this job because I love it and I have been thankful that I was given the chance. I don?t think there is anything more I could have done with regards to effort or issues so this May I will stand for re election in front of most of you of which I will try and demonstrate the reasons why I can be trusted for another term. The campaign will be based on not only my goals for the future but importantly pointing out what I have done and hope to continue.

Sincerely,
Steven M. Fulop

Headed for an early run and figured i would comment on this one. Firstly, thanks for the positive statements - i am extremely appreciative and it is encouraging. Over the last four years I sometimes wish that I kept a diary of happenings on the political front so I don't forget any of these lessons when I am out of politics although I think the last 2-3 months have been the largest learning experience for me on politics in general in Jersey City.

I would prob say 20 of the "volunteer/political friends" I had decided to leave our team and join one of the mayoral campaigns that they were opposed too within 24 hours of me saying that I wasn't running for mayor.... Many of them have their own personal agenda that they conveyed as their rationale after the fact that is beyond me nor would I have entertained requests had I declared that I was running for mayor. With that said, similar to Josh, I would suspect we will see 2-3 more council candidates based on conversations I have had with people who volunteered when they thought I was possibly running for mayor whom have told me in the past in meetings that they had interest in running for council - I would obviously have hoped not to have them run against me but I cant control this and I dont discourage it of course. Josh in particular was a closer working relationship, who I knew of through mutual friends for sometime, was very involved in the BetterJC initiative, and was even part of a large group vacation I went on, so it is slightly different/more meaningful to me personally but I keep the same statement regardless on all candidates. As I said in the newspaper on Frank, Guy, Jamie, and Josh - generally speaking I know these people personally and say "more people the better as it creates a better dialog". Generally. like the JC Independent reported on Josh none of the candidates who have declared to this point are surprises because some have conveyed to me prior their intentions and all of them I have known before they declared.

In reality, of course I would prob have the easiest time with the smallest field to run against but as I said in the Jersey Journal last month with regards to Healy, it is not my choice.

Hope all is well and info is helpful
Steve

The Hudson Reporter had an article last month on the city's budget that is worth reading as it is directly related to your tax bill.

This tax bill was delivered without a budget and I voted no on sending this out for that reason. The concern is that the administration has not put forward a budget to the council and we are in the 8th month of the fiscal year. At this point, it is very challenging to cut from the budget or plan ahead because assuming we got the budget tomorrow 2/3 of it is spent as we are that far into the year.

My understanding is that we should have the budget in the near term and some of this is being pushed by the state in most cities. From the state's standpoint the more transparency there is to the difficulty in a municipality's budget the more likelihood that Corzine will get support for the pension deferral program he is pushing in Trenton.

Sincerely,
Steven Fulop

Ianmac47

I have been working on this booting situation since last summer and the time change was actually included per request of some of the community groups. I have explained this change to most of the groups that I attend monthly but honestly have been having some concerns about this moving forward. When the booting policy is on the next agenda I will ask to remove the time change portion of the ordinance so we can further think about the pros/cons but we will move forward on the booting/permit changes.

The policies that will be changed through this process include

- consistent booting policy only after 3 tickets

- residential zone permits for residents elsewhere in the city

- Zone permits can now be picked up in city hall as well as at the JC Parking Authority


Hope that helps
Steve

I just wanted to take a quick second and post some additional information as I recognize there have been several concerns posted on this site.

While the fixmypath site is far from perfect, it was done on a very limited budget with very limited resources. Going forward, I will correct most of the issues that have been mentioned here and improve them before the next mass e-mail.

What is clear though is that there are many issues with the PATH service and we are just scraping the surface. Regardless of whether you care about just Newport, or holiday service, or just weekends, or just Grove Street, or next summer?s Exchange Place, what we all do agree on is that if Jersey City is to continue progressing, the PATH service needs to be improved significantly on multiple fronts.

Where we stand now is that there have been over 1000 e-mails sent via the fixmypath site and the Port Authority recognized the e-mails to the point that they drafted a response filled with twisted facts. It is a positive because we are early in the process but they thought it was important enough to respond? I have reached out to the mayor?s office to work together on setting the meeting with the Port Authority. The mayor's office has been responsive in willingness to work together on this and I am sure once the election passes it is something that we will be able to push forward more aggressively. I hope this provides some additional background on where we are with regards to the site and process.

Please e-mail me if you have any additional question.
Sincerely
Steven Fulop

Just one additional note as this is a valid point that I spoke to the PA about a year ago. Thispast summer they officially allocated the funding for the new PATH at Grove Street to be fully accessible per ADA guidelines.

I am not sure if it was a mistake whne the temp glass structure was built however it will certainly be included.

Steven Fulop

The following is the 2008 street paving schedule for Ward "E"

1) Warren Street from Essex to Dudley
2) Grand Street from Grove to Jersey
3) Colgate from First to Third
4) 6th Street from Manilla to Erie
5) Manilla from City Line to Boyle Plaza
6) 6th Street from Jersey to Brunswick
7) Brunswick from Newark to CC

(In addition CC will be paved as part of a state grant. We are aware of the dire condition of CC and the need)

Many of these streets were added based on constituent/community group feedback to our office. If there is a street that is in need please e-mail Althea or myself in city hall and we will work to have it included in the next phase.

I hope this is helpful information.

Sincerely,
Steven Fulop

Just following up on the question regarding CC from this thread. The city received a grant for CC and it is scheduled to be paved this fall. It certainly is in need and we recognize it.

Hope that helps
Steve

Mike
I do have info for you on this. Can you please send me an e-mail to fulops@jcnj.org. I will reach out to you this weekend and try to close the loop on this best we can.

The issue is zoning for the buildings that you mention without zoning for dixon mills. There seems to be legal issues here but we can go through them and figure out a resolution

Thanks
Steve

I would just like to give you an update on where things stand with this issue. I have been working with John Yurchak (Director of DPW), Captain McDonough (East District Police), and the Parking Authority. What we have come up with is this:

1. A stop sign will be placed on Erie at 3rd Street.
2. A stop sign will be placed on Erie at 7th Street.
3. The Parking Authority will be stepping up enforcement on parking at the curbs.
4. Crosswalks will be repainted.

Additionally, the blinking light on Erie at 10th Street might be switched to a standard traffic light in the near future.

The East District will also continue to keep an eye on speeding in the area.

This is a good start. The area will be monitored to see if this is effective or more is needed. This is very important as it relates to the changing needs of the area and its residents.

Sincerely,

Steven Fulop
Councilman Ward ?E?