Quote:

Always the JJ's problem - they never follow through. Today's editorial referenced the brain trust again, but failed to mention their names. That's why it will always be a 3rd rate paper striving to be 2nd rate. Why don't they just publish the report?

Quote:

a) I have my problems with specific Jersey Journal articles and editorial decisions, but, in general, it's a perfectly good little paper, and if people are reading the full text repostings here, I think it would be cool if at least they sometimes bought the paper at the newsstand or something, just to give it a little practical support before Newhouse strangles it.

b) It's good to see the Jersey Journal covering business a little more these past couple weeks, and the real estate columnist clearly at least has some clue how to do a good job and is trying. The recent special section articles have been fun, but I think they show why the Journal needs a reporter who covers business as a real beat and not just assign business articles to interns, special section reporters or general assignment reporters.

A paper like the Journal is never, ever going to cover business in a super-aggressive fashion, and that's fine. But one thing I notice about the special sections is that most of the articles are breathless puff pieces about giant real estate development companies or articles about cute little downtown businesses.

There aren't any articles in the special sections or in other papers about all of the people who come to small businesses around here asking them for bribes; about small businesses in the Heights, Journal Square or Greenville (OK, it's possible some were mentioned, but I don't remember seeing their names); about ways small business owners (or midsize or big business owners) would like to see local government rules and administrative practices change; or articles about the non-glamorous, midsize, workhorse businesses, like Bel-Fuse, that probably are the secretly the bedrock of our local economy. Example: before Manischewitz announced it was closing its plant, how many did you see the plant mentioned in the Journal? Not very many.

If the reporters and editors come to an understanding that the bad guys in most of these articles have to be government officials, general economic trends or companies outside the city, a reporter probably could write fairly aggressive, non-puffy articles without getting the paper into too much hot water.

Also: the Jersey Journal is part of the company that owns American City Business Journals. Maybe the Jersey Journal could get some help in this area if it got coaching from an editor at one of the business journals.

Development 'czar' is suggested

Jersey Journal
Thursday, March 01, 2007

Jersey City should consider hiring an economic development czar who would coordinate job creation and marketing, according to report released this week by a commission on the city's economic future.

In addition, the six-member Mayor's Council of Economic Advisors urged the city to consider creating a billboard tax and realty transfer fee, extending the residency requirements for firefighters and police beyond one year and seeking more revenue from the New York/New Jersey Port Authority, which owns large amounts of property in the city.

The city should continue to offer tax abatements on the waterfront, but needs to come up with a better way to link jobs for city residents with the tax breaks, the report said.


==============================================
Another article
=========================================

Politicial Insider Column: Healy gets advice he wants to hear

The Jersey Journal
Politicial Insider
Thursday, March 01, 2007

A special six-member commission was put together by Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah Healy with the mission of finding ways the city can improve its fiscal and economic future.

According to Journal columnist Jarrett Renshaw, the panel put effort into its 33-page report of findings and recommendations. The panel reported that the city's tax abatement policy is responsible for the economic flowering of the waterfront. It adds that it would be a mistake to end abatements because it would put new developers at a competitive disadvantage.

This commission is made up of business people. They are saying what the mayor cannot say without putting himself at a political disadvantage. While one can argue that tax abatements gave the city a Gold Coast of shiny new buildings - one has to ask, to what end?

Several administrations ago, when the city embarked on developing the waterfront, it was assumed that this new construction was to benefit all the people of Jersey City.

Today, the part of the city that is not on the waterfront has failed to advance beyond the economically stagnant days when the waterfront was just dilapidated railroad tracks and empty warehouses. Older shopping districts still struggle, affordable housing is a dream, and decent wages for the poorer among us are scarce.

One can argue that without the Gold Coast, city government could not function because the payments in lieu of taxes that are paid by the tax-abated cover a large part of its budget - the payroll. There has been no quantitative method developed by the city to determine whether tax abatements, especially in this millennium, have been a good idea - decades after they were used to entice major developers to this side of the Hudson.

Healy's blue-ribbon panel does show some independence by noting that the city's lower income residents have not benefited in the economic revival and suggesting that future tax abatements be linked to creating local jobs. The problem is that the courts have deemed job quotas unconstitutional.

Most of the other suggestions are a panoply of ideas the mayor has been trying to push, including a local realty transfer fee, designating a city development czar, getting more tax dollars from the Port Authority and adding more police officers.

The only question for the city administration is now what? Will it use the commission report to justify the administration's agenda - including more tax abatements?

One of the few reasons to read the JJ.



Oh, and see my sig line.

Quote:

What a great column. Renshaw really is trying to write about stuff that matters.

I've already recycled my Journal and don't remember the name of the op-ed political columnist, but I thought that column was an example of what, technically, might have been perfectly good column but was bad for people who want Jersey City to be better. It was all horse race stuff about the HCDO and Healy, Doria, Stack, Fulop, et al.

For someone who started the column not knowing who those people were, it would look like an incomprehensible mass of names. For someone who knows the names, it might make sense, but it didn't give even the most general idea about how or whether the results of the horse races might actually affect public policy.

Also: the column goes on to talk about the school board candidates but doesn't really give me a clue about what those people stand for. And the Journal had an article about McCann running for school board that said absolutely nothing about how he would go about improving the schools (or keeping them the same, if he thinks they're fine as is).

I think the reporters there who cover crime do a much better of reporting. Maybe it would be good if they could send out the political columnist to chase the police cars and have the police reporters go cover the schools and City Hall.

Their bottom line: Mustn't stop those tax abatements
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
JARRETT RENSHAW'S LOCATION COLUMN

Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah Healy recently assembled a brain trust to diagnose the city's economic future. The six-member commission of business professionals released their results this week and some of their findings and recommendations may come as a surprise.

The authors say overspending is not the cause of Jersey City's annual structural budget deficit. So we can stop worrying about the countless number of patronage jobs in City Hall and elsewhere that place obvious strain on the budget and represent a slap in the face to hard-working taxpayers.

No, the authors claim, the problem is the city's reluctance to raise property taxes, and its reliance on one-shot revenue deals to avoid raising taxes.

While true, it's clearly a narrow take on a much broader problem that needs to be addressed.

The 33-page report spends considerable time lauding the benefits of the city's aggressive tax abatement policy, saying it has been at the heart of the city's renaissance.

Furthermore, the authors say, tax abatements should be continued on the waterfront - since "eliminating tax abatements Downtown now would likely impede any further development due to competition against existing developments that have tax abatements and the New York City market."

This despite the fact that the authors (accurately) acknowledge the fact that city officials are not currently using any measurable criteria to evaluate and review the merits of tax abatement proposals. They suggest the city "better articulate the statutory criteria" in the future to combat the growing anger from city residents who fear they may pay the ultimate price.

To this point, the report fails to address the potential impacts of the proliferation of tax abatements on residents across the city. The current policy exposes those without the coveted tax abatements to hikes in taxes, shielding others from such spikes and raising questions about exactly who benefits from the policy.

To their credit, the authors don't ignore the obvious failure to include the city's minorities in the renaissance, urging city officials to adopt a policy that would link job creation to tax abatements, a move the city is already pursuing.

"Unfortunately, specific segments of our population have benefited disproportionately from this development, as poverty and unemployment remain substantial problems," the authors wrote.

I do not question the expertise of the authors, but it was disappointing to see language in the report that suggests they were also playing the role as cheerleader.

For example, the report describes the mayor's call for more police as "admirable." While it may be, such comments only serve to discredit the legitimacy of the authors and are better left to the people who funded the report to decide: the taxpayers.

Here's a summary of some of their other recommendations:

[] The city should seek to extend the residency requirement for new police and firefighters beyond one year. In addition, the city should consider allocating a portion of affordable housing for these groups.

[] The Port Authority owns "substantial" amounts of property in Jersey City, yet the city only receives $776,305 in taxes on the property. The city should seek to change this arrangement.

[] Designate a high-level economic development executive to centralize coordination of all city economic development functions, including job creation and the marketing of the city.

[] Add more police officers, demolish blighted buildings, and convert brownfields and vacant lots to new buildings and parks.

[] Create more recurring revenue through a billboard tax and a realty transfer fee.

Link to Renshaw's column on the NJ.com site