Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
26 user(s) are online (15 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 1
Guests: 25

TheBigGuy, more...


Forum Index


Board index » All Posts (paig55)




Re: Did you know the City Council is required at (Open Public Meeting Act) Caucus allow public to speak
#1
Newbie
Newbie


Thank you Parkman. Yes, a council is a governing body, as defined the in the definition section of the law.
Also, the council defines itself as a governing body, on its page of the JC website.

Posted on: 3/21 16:46
Top


Re: Did you know the City Council is required at (Open Public Meeting Act) Caucus allow public to speak
#2
Newbie
Newbie


www.njfog.org

Please see N.J.S.A. 10:4-12 this section discuss the exception to public attending only.
Governing bodies must set aside a portion of every meeting (Caucus included) to allow for public comment.
Historically, this law has NOT BEEN ENFORCED, its time it is.
The Public has a legal right to speak at caucus and general council meetings and the council nor does the
Legal Department have a right to prohibit a legal right.

Posted on: 3/19 11:16
Top


Re: Did you know the City Council is required at (Open Public Meeting Act) Caucus allow public to speak
#3
Newbie
Newbie


You obviously have never read the law.

Posted on: 3/18 22:07
Top


Re: Wow - LSC's Updated Plans for SciTech Scity
#4
Newbie
Newbie


I have so many concerns about this transaction. Many concerns that every property taxpayer and voter in JC should have FULL answers to before this transfer is approved.

Why wouldn't the council have the real estate appraised before the closing? Who ever heard of closing on real estate before having it appraised. As a homeowner didn't you have the property you were purchasing appraised before you purchased it?

Why is the Council President Lavarro voting on this transfer when he is also the Chair of JCRA. There must be a conflict of interest here. It may not be unlawful, but is certainly is unethical. As NJRA chair he has information about this transaction that no one else on the council has, yet he is allowed to vote on this transaction. Lavarro should abstain from voting, that is the ethical thing to do.
Also Daniel Rivera who also sits on the JCRA board. This the only ethical thing to do.

Why is the council and mayor promoting this 50/50 and 80/20 revenue share? They forgot to tell the public THERE WILL BE NO REVENUE SHARE. You ask why, this is why. Because the full agreement reads, that revenue will be shared when it exceeds expenses. Also, the revenue share will NOT include any revenue received from donations from individuals or corporate donations. What this means is that SciTech could have $100,000 in expenses, $100,000 in revenue NOT including the revenue of $100,000 in donations and JC will never see a penny of shared revenue. But SciTech will be seating on $100,000 in revenue obtained from donations. Keep in mind a hugh part of income in this type of non-profit could come from donations.
The contract wording MUST BE CHANGED to read: JC will have first right to % compensation before ALL OTHER expenses.

Did the council tell you there is a an article in the contract that allows SciTech to apply for ABATEMENTS? Now, why would a NON-PROFIT need to apply for an abatement? Why, because the plan is to lease hugh amounts of space to developers and they will want ABATEMENTS!

Who will be donating the $78 million needed as seed money? Who are these people/corporations and what relationship do they have with JC? Who are their board members and what is their relationship with JC? Have any of them made donations to the Fulop SUPERPAC?

The council is giving 16-17 acres of land to JCRA which will ultimately be sold to SciTech LLC for $10. If you are selling to SciTech for $10 than please explain the arrangement to pay the city a portion of revenue until value of land is repaid. Although, I have already explained JC will probably never receive all payment for the full value of this land.
It has been projected that this land could be worth somewhere BETWEEN $100-150 million. Is that why the council, mayor and JCRA wants to wait UNTIL CLOSING to appraise this land value. At which point nothing can be done to secure a compensation for this true value.

ALSO, there should be A PUBLIC MEETING to discuss and answer questions about this transaction. AT this time WE ARE LEAVING THE DECISION OF FIVE (5) people who have a pattern of voting in favor of WHATEVER THE MAYOR WANTS to decide the fate of OUR LAND.

THIS land value could provide an offset to the property tax impact after the REVAL. HOMEOWNER ALL OVER THIS CITY SHOUDL BE OUT QUESTIONING THIS TRANSACTION.

DID YOU KNOW that the Council has NO CONTROL over JCRA. Once this land is TRANSFERRED TO JCRA, we the citizens of JC will be POWERLESS in securing our rights to the land or its TRUE VALUE.

There are so many holes in the current contract, which will leave us the residents of JC with NOTHING.

Please call the City Clerks office and add your name to the speakers list 201-547-2233.
The 2nd and FINAL READING IS CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22 @ 6PM.
PLEASE COME OUT you OWE IT TO YOURSELF AND YOUR NEIGHBORS.

If we let this happen we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Thank you.

J. Paige

Posted on: 3/17 10:40
Top


Did you know the City Council is required at (Open Public Meeting Act) Caucus allow public to speak
#5
Newbie
Newbie


I called yesterday to put my name on caucus speakers list and was advised by city clerk I may attend but public comment period not allowed. OPMA (Open Public Meeting Act) requires that all governing bodies and school boards in the state of NJ, must allow a public comment period. This applies to all public meeting where a quorum attends and matter pertaining to the city are discussed or acted on. I called the JC Law Department in the hope that I could speak to someone regarding this matter. I was told someone would get back to me. I am still waiting and hope some will return my call. However, in the meantime I have sent an email to the Council to inform them of this oversight. This post is to inform the public that currently we are not being allowed to fully exercise our 1st amendment right and that the Council is in violation OPMA. I will keep you posted as this matter continues. Hopefully, it will be remedied in the near future.

Posted on: 3/17 9:57
Top


Anatomy of a Back-Room Deal
#6
Newbie
Newbie



Posted on: 1/10 21:38
Top


Re: Who wants to protest Friday RE: booker in JC
#7
Newbie
Newbie


Where is the protest and what time?

Posted on: 2013/9/19 2:39
Top


Re: 2011 Board of Education Election - Vidya Gangadin- JC Mom for School Board!
#8
Newbie
Newbie


It's ironic that I found this message. I attended the debate at P.S. 16 and came to the same conclusion. I would vote for two Fulop candidates and Vidya.

When I shared this with someone who is running the response was she supports Epps. My response was, it's your job as a Board Member, if your elected, to bring opposing sides together. I'm sure when you explain why the current Superintendent does not work to the benefit of the children she will reconsider her position, if that is her position. I don't know who she supports. What I know is that there is always room for movement and a need for financial expertise.

She has a much needed skill set which is her financial background. The School Board is lacking in the required professionals needed to review an extensive budget and isolate the unnecessary waste I feel certain is pervasive.

Posted on: 2011/4/10 11:56
Top



TopTop






Login
Username:

Password:

remember me

Lost Password?

Register now!



LicenseInformation | AboutUs | PrivacyPolicy | Faq | Contact


JERSEY CITY LIST - News & Reviews - Jersey City, NJ - Copyright 2004 - 2017