Yvonne wrote:
Let me correct my statement, I meant to say, it did not increase voter participation. I need to type as fast as I think.

tj08901 wrote:
It is not about synergy. It is about a decent service for the price a consumer is paying. Gold Coast's is undoubtedly the worst service I have experienced. The board need to looks at whether free cable access for common areas, free wiring of the building, etc., that LH currently has is worth maintaining the exclusive contract that it currently has with Gold Coast. Other building have FIOS, Comcast, etc. (multiple options), and are still able to get the services for either free or at a cost.

This is exclusivity and lack of competition/ options needs to be looked and I will make sure it is.

tj08901 wrote:
It is not about synergy. It is about a decent service for the price a consumer is paying. Gold Coast's is undoubtedly the worst service I have experienced. The board need to looks at whether free cable access for common areas, free wiring of the building, etc., that LH currently has is worth maintaining the exclusive contract that it currently has with Gold Coast. Other building have FIOS, Comcast, etc. (multiple options), and are still able to get the services for either free or at a cost.

This is exclusivity and lack of competition/ options needs to be looked and I will make sure it is.

Yvonne wrote:
No, I did not remembered it wrong, I also bring up these things at budget hearings. I don't remember seeing you at budget hearings. Sometimes I am the only one to speak. Let me give you some background, before the 1988 reval, JC had a ratable base of $800 million after reval it was between $6 to 7 billion figure. I do not recall the exact figure. When Schundler was mayor, he was giving out a lot of abatements plus many people appealed during that time. The value of JC dropped to $5.1 billion. Those 1990s, 20 years tax abatements have largely expired so the ratable base is close to $6 billion. The higher the ratable base, the lower the rate rate. Fulop is benefiting from these expired tax abatements. When Healy was mayor, the ratable base was around $5.7 billion. Fulop's 30 year tax abatement will come back and haunt future mayors down the road.

T-Bird wrote:
Quote:

LimpiarElSucio wrote:

Is this why he was pushing for it back in 2010 after the legislature changed the law? We've got a pretty clairvoyant mayor... :)

C'mon - you are a smart guy. (Where are you from? ) Motivations can change - he was for it back then because it was something that could help neutralize the machine. Now it serves his purposes to support it for other reasons. One does not negate the other.

The whole argument about "long, crowded, confusing ballots" is kind of silly - most people file their own taxes and everyone used to navigate phone books just fine. I wouldn't put voting on a ballot that has more than a few races and multiple candidates in each on the same level. People will manage. They almost always do.

Yvonne wrote:
I guess, you never voted in 1989 municipal election catdog, where 20 mayors ran for office. Not all had a full slate, if they did that would be 60 at large, plus about 12 for the ward candidates. We had another 20 mayors run in a special election that was also packed. That special election was in November. Most seniors that voted told me they wanted to vote for Lou Manzo, instead they voted for his brother, Allen Manzo who had the top ballot. They were confused. Lou Manzo got 6,000 votes, his brother who no one heard of got 4,000 votes, the winner was Bret Schundler who benefited from the confusion with 7,000 votes.

T-Bird wrote:
Quote:

LimpiarElSucio wrote:

I'm also convinced that moving the election DOES NOT provide a fallback plan for our Mayor. Fulop would have to submit his petitions for the mayoral race prior to the gubernatorial primary, if that happened Sweeney and Murphy would have a field day and it could wreck Fulop's chances for the primary (while his gubernatorial run would hurt his chances in the mayoral).

No, sir. Petitions for November elections need to be filed 63 days before the election - which usually works out to the beginning of September or the very end of August. The gubernatorial primary is the first Tuesday of June. It 100% would be a fallback for Fulop and is the primary reason he is pushing for it.

OneSkirt wrote:
My personal opinion:

Pros:
1. Might reduce voter fatigue

2. Might save money (though $400,000 I believe was quoted, which isn't all that much imho)

Cons (in no particular order):
1. Lets Fulop run for Mayor again with only 3 months to jump in the campaign if he loses nod for governor, using JC as a fall back plan and usurping other candidates who would have already invested much more time and money in their own campaigns. I'm not ok with any mayor using JC as a fall back plan!

2. Extends Council and Mayoral terms by 6 more months.

3. Creates a jammed ballot, potentially confusing voters and leaving them more apt to only partially complete their ballots.

4. Creates voter fatigue during the months leading up to the elections ("campaign fatigue") with an even greater onslaught of simultaneous campaigning - national, state, and municipal which includes Mayor, full council, free holders, county exec, school board and committee persons.

5. May draw more people to the polls, but doesn't guarantee more voter participation given the jammed/long ballot. There's no requirement to check every box on a ballot for any voter. I can see most people voting for President, US Senate & HR Reps, Governor, maybe state assembly, Mayor, and maybe county exec. Fatigue will set in and people will likely start to wane/fall off on checking any boxes for Council persons (4 people), Freeholder, Committee Persons, School Board(!), and the public questions.

6. Creates run-off elections in December, where cold/bad weather will reduce voter turnout.

7. Cannot be changed back to May for 10 years if it passes - we're stuck if we don't like it in practice.


I think it's a terrible idea and will be voting NO for all of the above reasons. The cons far out-weigh the Pros here.

Yvonne wrote:
Thank God the judge said there must be runoffs, so voters are going to come out in December when there could be a snow storm to vote in a runoff? I doubt it.

Yvonne wrote:
Here is my letter to the editor:
October 13, 2015
Dear Editor,
I think democracy happened today in Judge Barisco?s court concerning the referendum on moving the Jersey City?s elections. The reason for the lawsuit was the fear of no runoffs in the municipal elections. Judge Barisco stated that does not change, runoffs will continue in our elections. I also thank the Judge from removing language that was not necessary for the voting process.
I went to the Freeholders to ask about the change of election from the Jersey City and was told they received nothing so I gave them the resolution which eventually lead to the mock-up ballot.
I urge the public to vote no. We do not need a crowded ballot. I remember 20 people running for mayor. If each mayoral candidate had a full slate, then that is 60 candidates plus perhaps a dozen ward candidates. No one can predict the future so let?s not overwhelmed the ballot.
The judge request a payment of $2,500 to fix the ballot, sometimes it is worth spending money to keep democracy safe. My grandmother went to jail as a suffrage to give women the right to vote so this is a small price to pay.
I also want to thank Bill Matsidoudis for representing this matter in court.

Yvonne Balcer

CatDog wrote:
I can't believe they are trying to say that City Hall is blighted. Seriously? It's a beautiful building and in pretty good condition. The article says they're not planning to tear it down, just to get money from the developer to renovate it. But that's some shady business dealing. "Hey, City Hall could use some renovation, know what I mean? Maybe I'll let you build stuff on those properties there if you fix it up, nudge nudge wink wink?"

jmiz wrote:

Quote:

Yvonne wrote: Your advice do not make sense in Zone 2 which is larger than Hoboken.

What doesn't make sense? Taking a taxi? Using a metered spot so you can park as long as you'd like as long as you feed the meter? Not using a doctor in Zone 2 if it's "ANTI-FAMILY" (which is the funniest thing I've heard all day, thanks for that one). The only thing that doesn't make sense is you. 

Quote:

People use street parking if their garage door is out or they must take care of family business. It is no wonder people here do not use their real names, their statements would be an embarrassment to family and friends.

Why should the city accomodate a parking garage door problem on PRIVATE PROPERTY? Who gives a shit if your garage door is not working. Take it up with whatever board operates your property. Instead, you bitch that Zone 2 is not accomodating of your private property issue. Go do what every other person in the city does: find a non-zoned spot, find a private lot, or god-forbid, you keep your car in the garage for the day and use public transit or a taxi.

If Yvonne's life is inconvenienced for one day, she's at the City Hall the next day crying about how unfair the city is. Tough shit, grow up already. Not physically, either -- mentally. 

Yvonne wrote:
... Before the merger of the Parking Authority to the JC Police Department, everyone who is a resident of JC received a parking permit.

heights wrote:
Wow a rock and a hard place. So if you can't get a zone permit, no reserved permits, and the whole area is reserved/zoned and you do not fall into either category I guess you're out in the cold. NOT FAIR !

Pebble wrote:
...I do not believe her claim that the majority of homes on the list were "the nicest home with a car in front". She's lied before and given her anti-Fulop bias (hence her complaints now instead of years ago when Healy was mayor and the program existed), I have no reason to trust anything she says on this topic.

Yvonne wrote:
It is amazing how Secaucus and other town in North Hudson did development without 30 years tax abatements. By comparison Secaucus has a low tax rate. With all this development our taxes increased from $30.52 to nearly $75.00 after reval. If abatements were great, our taxes should have not increased. In 1988, after reval, you paid $3,000 to JC if assessed at $100,00, now you are paying $7,500. JC did not have the buildings in 1988 as it does now. Tax abatements was sold as a way to stabilize our taxes. The reversed has happened. These abatements were contracts, not added to the ratable base and our taxes rose.

SRhia wrote:
A friend of mine is looking for apartments and is considering Liberty Harbor. I'm wondering if you can provide some feedback? Sorry, I know a bit off topic.

Also, has anyone checked out the rentals at Charles & co? I heard that it's almost 50% rented?

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

LimpiarElSucio wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

LimpiarElSucio wrote:
then go become a developer. since you can do things cheaper than they can you can competitively cut them out and rake it in.

Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
well, i guess if it falls within the jsq redevelopment area nd that area qualifies for 30 year abatements, i can't really object BUT perhaps the city should start scaling back abatements in jsq to 10 year

When the economy was soft, Kennedy Lofts, asked for a 15 year abatement, Healy gave them 12 years. Kennedy Lofts is the old Welfare building in Journal Square. The economy is great today and now we are granting them 30 years, 18 more years than under Healy. I don't buy this. Journal Square is prime property.

Developers take the risks and receive the rewards. This should not involve taxpayers subsidizing them. When they sell their property, usually 2 or 3 years later, the public does not receive the benefit because the abatement is transferred. Besides, who is bailing out the 2,300 people in lien for 2013? The answer is no one.

Developers build properties for their own benefit, not the benefit of a community. When development is isolated to one part of a city, only one part of the city benefits from development. The other part(s) get little to nothing and you have the tale of two cities continue to widen. Since government cannot force developers where to build it is limited to enticing them... Pilots reduce some varieties of risk so that the opportunity cost of developing in riskier markets is reduced, and the "love can be spread."


Markets are constantly changing, week to week, month to month, year to year, and certainly decade to decade. You cannot possibly believe that just because 1 developer (out of thousands) decided to build something 20 years ago that it means all, or even any, developers would be able to justify development in the same area today. Its just not rational to hold that belief.

There is nothing in the city charter saying regular taxpayers should subsidize development. In fact, when the law was originally passed, it targeted property no one wanted. These abatements went to downtown where developers were paying $5 and $10 million for the plot in the 1990s. Journal Square is prime property, the fact Kennedy Lofts got a 12 abatement when the market was soft shows 30 years are not necessary.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

LimpiarElSucio wrote:
then go become a developer. since you can do things cheaper than they can you can competitively cut them out and rake it in.

Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
well, i guess if it falls within the jsq redevelopment area nd that area qualifies for 30 year abatements, i can't really object BUT perhaps the city should start scaling back abatements in jsq to 10 year

When the economy was soft, Kennedy Lofts, asked for a 15 year abatement, Healy gave them 12 years. Kennedy Lofts is the old Welfare building in Journal Square. The economy is great today and now we are granting them 30 years, 18 more years than under Healy. I don't buy this. Journal Square is prime property.

Developers take the risks and receive the rewards. This should not involve taxpayers subsidizing them. When they sell their property, usually 2 or 3 years later, the public does not receive the benefit because the abatement is transferred. Besides, who is bailing out the 2,300 people in lien for 2013? The answer is no one.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
well, i guess if it falls within the jsq redevelopment area nd that area qualifies for 30 year abatements, i can't really object BUT perhaps the city should start scaling back abatements in jsq to 10 year

When the economy was soft, Kennedy Lofts, asked for a 15 year abatement, Healy gave them 12 years. Kennedy Lofts is the old Welfare building in Journal Square. The economy is great today and now we are granting them 30 years, 18 more years than under Healy. I don't buy this. Journal Square is prime property.