To Joshua- under the Faulkner, the council votes on contracts, not the mayor. If Boggiano wants more time to have different providers present their views, I think that is fine. McCabe said they start January 1, 2014, which I find disturbing. If that is the case, then Fulop has a rubber stamp council. Let me repeat, they received this information Friday.

McCabe's Facebook page stating they have the contract.
https://www.facebook.com/McCabeAmbulance

One of the speakers for the Medical Center, I forgot the name, said the bidding process was improper, he used the term "kickbacks." I am sure there will be legal action down the road. Secondly, the city council received this on Friday. Boggiano made a valid point to have Medical Center and McCabe at meetings so the council should receive more information. But it is being shove down their throats. I mentioned Torricelli because many people here do not know who he is. Again, Fulop ran on a platform of reform and this contract also involves a senator who had a problem with ethics.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2002/10/ ... ps-out-november-election/

I went to the caucus meeting. We are talking about this year, 2.6 million there is no guaranteed of the next. Besides, it is pay to play. Read the article below.

http://www.nj.com/jjournal-news/index ... _jersey_sen_robert_t.html

I left the caucus meeting, no one can dispute the fact that JC Medical Ambulance does an outstanding job according to independent reports. I see this as a "pay to play" contract.

If you plan to speak at the City Council call the City Clerk's Office 201-547-5150 to be placed on the agenda.

Why would that Michael who resides in Succasunna, NJ contribute? He is not a resident of JC. McCabe Ambulance does operate in Succasunna, NJ.

This article mentions McCabe's son Michael:
http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2013/08/post_358.html

Monday - 12/16/13 - I open the Jersey Journal and see a full page ad from McCabe Ambulance. This ad appears five different times in the newspapers today. Nothing is free, so I can see the rates going up to pay for these ads. Who knows they might run tomorrow and Wednesday.

This reminds me of Schundler selling the public a bill of goods on privatizing the water. He mention how much money the city would receive. Well, Schundler was right about that, the rates went through the roof. Bayonne Hospital has one of the highest rates as a hospital so I suspect, McCabe will make their profit with inflated bills.

Taxes increased over 85% under Healy, the municipal portion. It is due to tax abatements not being added to the ratable base. The State Comptroller said in 2010 that JC loses $120 million a year due to tax abatements. That report criticized JC and other urban districts for relying on abatements then asking for more money.

This is a copy of the Hudson Reporter dated March 12, 2000. As you can see Brewster, the budget is $314 million. The city's history is the same as the Old Bergen Church. They celebrated their 350 years in 2010 so in 2000, Jersey City was 340 years old. So my facts are correct from 1660 to 2000, the budget grew from $0 million to $314 million. At the last budget hearing, thirteen years later, the budget was over $515.9 million over $201 million. Yet taxes keep rising, why? Tax Abatements which are not ratables.

Well, here is a fact, from 1660 to 2010 the budget grew from $0 to $314 million, thirteen years later an additional 201 million. But taxes went up because all of those abated tax dollars did not lower the ratable base. It is the ratable base that keep any municipality fiscal sound and JC ratable base is too low. Also when an abatement expires, every developer runs to tax court and win an tax appeal to lower their tax rate, and we the public see more bonding debt. Abatements has hurt the ratable base and will continue to do so.

Abatements hurt the ratable base. While it is true the city keeps the money, the ratable base is lower now than 1988 when reval happened. The ratable base was around $7 billion, 25 years later it is under $6 billion. We are spending more because tax abatements are not ratables. The lower the ratables the higher the taxes for everyone.

Developers starting asking for abatements when they realized JC was a pushover. But being a pushover is no reason to award an abatement. It was also a way for mayors to finance their campaign. It was the developers who paid for Schundler's governors campaign via abatements.

Brewster, I was around when redevelopment started in the early 1980s. Developers never asked for an abatement, the city offered an abatement for two reasons: affordable housing and to prepay their taxes. Newport and the Colgate Redevelopment did not ask for an abatement. Dixon Mills was developed without a long term abatement including Society Hills which was built on contaminated land. These 1980s development did not come before the city council and said, I need an abatement in order to develop. I was there and I am glad former Mayor McCann wrote about this recently in his letter to the editor several weeks ago.

.

Try Moloney's Meat on Newark Avenue near the Courthouse. They prepare cutlets.

You are lucky, I know someone who was booted when he returned to JC to attend a relative's funeral.

Canco was not affected by Irene or Sandy, no flooding.

Recent tax bill: Municipal $37.44 per thousands, schools, $18.47 per thousand. Missing from that data is the school bonding that is paid from the municipal portion which is $1.16 per thousands. The school debt was always part of the municipal portion and is still paid from the municipal portion but in the early 1990s mayors campaign to show it as a different numbers to keep the municipal numbers down. The same with the library tax. So if the library and school bonding were added would be close to $39 per thousands. Now compared that to $18.47 for school cost.

No, taxpayers more for city services than schools in JC. Police and fire- if you add up pension, health care, salaries, etc is about 70% of the budget. The $9.5 million bond for terminal leave basically was police/fire leaving the city. The city has floated more than $28 million in those bonds in recent years. That doesn't include the $128.9 million from McCann (police and fire pensions for several years) and Schundler's $20 million. So a portion of debt service is related to police and fire payments.

The only way you can answer a question is to attack the person who asks the question, but guess what? You did not answer it. With all of this abated money coming in from tax abated buildings, all taxpayers should have lower bills. But in reality the opposite is true. Tax abatements benefit the people in the building but are a burden on the rest of JC. It is the reason towns like Secaucus do not give abatements and yet they have a lot of development. Even Hoboken do not give abatements on the luxury waterfronts, such as the Tea Building.

So the response is tax abated properties pay more, so can anyone explain why my taxes keep going up? Since the city?s inception, 1660 to 2000, 340 years, city budget grew from $0 to $314 million. Thirteen years later, over $515 million. One would think all of this development would mean my taxes are going down. No! Because abatements are not ratables and only ratables are used in the tax formula. The older residents are subsidizing all of the abatements.
Sorry, I am not grateful!

You are welcome!

Video of ordinance 11/9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZwiN2 ... =UUPZCDR4rCUMJtCl7__MaEag

Then perhaps you weren't listening, gentrification means you are being priced out of your community where you born and your taxes are going through the roof. Sean Connolly, spoke well about this when he was running for council at large. I believe his family was here before the Civil War. He is another person who does not believe in abatements.

You raised an interesting point that no one is forced to move here. But many people were born here, never left and now lives in a city that has dramatically changed for the benefit of newer residents, along with the benefits of abatements.

Vindication, you have a poor sense of humor, I was asked to explain regular and irregular people. Obvious no person is irregular, but bringing in more people with cars without adequate parking is a hardship for the regular people who live here. Many people believe new development should not have cars, that theory does not wash because people do have cars even if they use the PATH.

A 5 year tax abatement increases 20% each year. Expect another increase next year.