OneSkirt wrote:
I don't live in the Heights, but I have no problem with them doing this. However, there are two very stupid things here:

#1
"The new zone will not take effect for a year. City officials believe it will take that long to make sure the city's parking division has the staff to enforce the new rules."

Why do we accept that it will take this long for Parking to get its act together?!? MAKE THEM, COUNCIL! It shouldn't take more than 6 months TOPS fore them to be able to effectively launch this. This delay is utter crap. Director Paretti needs to actually do some work for that sweet 6 figure salary.

#2
"A $15 annual permit for residents will allow them to park in the zone 24 hours a day."

Expanded services at virtually FREE rates? That price is stupid and needs to be increased. Some would say substantially or to market rate. I would say $30-$50/year makes sense - that's still a giant bargain. How does this city expect to pay for better services like expanded enforcement - which we desperately need citywide - at these 1970's prices?!?

Yvonne wrote:
Another person running for office who is not present at public meetings to express his views on public policy.

OneSkirt wrote:
Quote:

kencares wrote:
Fulop neither cares about improving traffic safety nor does he have the knowledge or skill set to do so.

We need a new mayor who truly cares about the safety of Jersey City's residents.

The first part of your statement (not caring) - I'd agree with, and its a huge problem. The second part I think is false. He only has to make it a priority and let the experts improve it, and just stay on them to make them follow through.

DanL wrote:

and in tv news -

http://pix11.com/2016/07/27/jersey-ci ... TE6Lb7LYME2VCdnkNZB_gf9B3

sorry this cannot be imbedded.

Court Reinstates Loew's Grant


Some of you may remember that last August, shortly after Friends of the Loew?s had beaten back Jersey City?s attempt to break our Lease, Jersey City under Mayor Steven Fulop asked Hudson County to take away a grant FOL had won for the Loew?s.

No reason was really given by the City at the County Freeholder meeting where this request was considered, and more than a few members of the public spoke out against it. But the Hudson County Board of Chosen Freeholders nevertheless agreed to do what the City wanted, and voted to take away $300,000 earmarked for the Loew?s.

In a previous message to County Executive Tom DeGise, Mayor Fulop had suggested that the work the grant was supposed to pay for at the Loew?s was not significant.

What was truly inexplicable about all this was that the grant had been designated to pay for repairs that would help make the Loew?s comply with the City?s own safety and health codes ? something that every property owner is supposed to do, regardless of who the tenant is. Jersey City is the owner of the Loew?s, and in fact, the City had committed in our Lease to find funding for this important work, but had failed to do so. Instead, at the City?s urging, FOL asked the County to provide grant funding for some of it. Also at Jersey City?s request, and to demonstrate our willingness to work together, FOL had agreed to make the City a co-grantee in the grant and allow the City to administer the work of the grant.

After the 2015 action by the Freeholders to take away this important funding from the Loew?s, FOL reluctantly sued the County. The grant had been won by FOL and, even after we agreed to include the City in the grant, FOL remained a co-grantee. This means that the City had no right to unilaterally ask the County to take the money away, and the County was wrong to act accordingly. Last Friday, a judge agreed with us and ordered the grant restored to the Loew?s.

At the least, this decision means that moneys improperly taken will be returned to make important improvements to the Loew?s.

This whole strange episode with the grant funding also demonstrates pretty clearly that although the City frequently tries to imply that ? somehow ? FOL has impeded progress at the Loew?s, the opposite is actually the case. Over the years, when the City has failed to meet its commitments or, worse, thrown roadblocks in the way, it?s been FOL that has stepped up to do what we can to make sure the Loew?s wasn?t left in the lurch.

Now that this unfortunate episode is behind us, Friends of the Loew?s again extends our hand and a plea to the City: Please stop pointlessly fighting us, and instead, let?s find a way to work together.

Dear Mayor Fulop,

I am writing on behalf of the Arts Advocacy Program at the National Coalition Against Censorship. As an organization dedicated to promoting the First Amendment right to free speech, including freedom of artistic expression, we are troubled to learn of the series of arbitrary changes imposed by City officials on a public artwork commissioned for Jersey City, and especially by the censorship of the work and painting over part of it. We urge you to take the opportunity to learn from the mistakes made in this case and develop a public art policy for Jersey City.

It is our understanding that, in May, the Jersey City Mural Arts Program commissioned local artist Gary Wynans, aka Mr. AbiLLity, to create a 33-foot floor mural based on one of his existing works: a creative twist on the traditional Monopoly board game. Located on the busy pedestrian plaza at Newark Avenue, the mural replaces the game?s street names and other details with Jersey City street names and familiar local icons. The game?s focus on money and real estate is used to bring attention to income disparities and gentrification in real-life Jersey City.

The artist worked with Brooke Hansson, Director of the Jersey City Mural Arts Program, until a final design was agreed upon. Ms. Hansson demanded a number of modifications so as to avoid offense and controversy: for instance, she rejected the inclusion of the names of low-income housing projects and the mention of ?gentrification tax.? While those changes to the artist?s vision are troublesome, as they suppress key aspects of his message, even more troublesome are the series of modifications required after the mural was approved.

The element of the mural that became most controversial was the ?Jail? square representing the artist?s self-portrait, which some interpreted as representing a black man behind bars (Mr. Wynans is Italian and Puerto Rican). A number of residents, including state Assemblywoman Angela McKnight, said the image reinforced negative stereotypes of people of color and demanded that it be removed or changed. The City quickly yielded to those demands and painted over the image of the artist, leaving instead a blank orange square.

The City?s actions, based on what appear to be a series of subjective interpretations and individual complaints, raise serious First Amendment concerns. The practice of public officials using their power to arbitrarily remove elements of an artwork whose message some individuals do not like violates First Amendment principles. Government should not be forcing an artist, whose work they have selected for public installation, to modify their message so as to satisfy individual complainants. To do so would be to grant these individuals a heckler?s veto.

Indeed, while some may have found the representation of what appeared like a black man in the jail square offensive, others may have interpreted it as a critique of the racial biases of our criminal justice system. Respecting diversity does not mean suppressing everything that could potentially generate an objection. Indeed, given the fact that art is open to multiple, sometimes conflicting interpretations, such a standard would jeopardize the City?s entire Mural Arts Program.

Public art programs are a wonderful asset: they create a positive image of a city; they help development and give local artists expressive opportunities. However, public art by its very nature draws complaints and is exposed to controversy. For that reason we urge the City to develop a public art policy. We have seen how, in the current case, the lack of a clear public art selection and review process has forced the City to respond to complaints in an apparently arbitrary manner and censor the mural. This action is not only constitutionally suspect, it is also likely to put the City in a vulnerable position when other groups decide to complain about different works of public art: satisfying every complainant is likely to leave the whole program in shambles and create a negative image of the City as a censor.

We strongly suggest that, in the future, Jersey City puts in place a policy for the selection of art, as well as procedures for reviewing and responding to complaints consistent with First Amendment principles. We would also suggest that a review committee including local artists forms part of this process.

Sincerely,
Svetlana Mintcheva

Director of Programs
National Coalition Against Censorship New York