Browsing this Thread:
6 Anonymous Users
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Quote:
people should just shut up and let him do his thing ...it was pointed out on this site that he approved a single abatement, and he answered that post with a lengthy and polite response which pointed out the interest rate in question is *60%* higher than what's currently being doled out. ...show me a post by Willie Flood or Gaughan or Vega or Richardson or *any* other city council person to *any* jc community list addressing their vote on *any* particular issue. Your assumption that it's either yes to every abatement or no to every abatements is simplistic. Your refusal to appreciate or even acknowledge the degree to which Fulop's been accessible and responsive is mysterious.
Posted on: 2008/3/31 0:18
|
|||
|
"Someday a book will be written on how this city can be broke in the midst of all this development." ---Brewster
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Your thesis in the post above is exactly what bothers me about Fulop-mania. All politicians, even the "least bad" ones, should be subject to scrutiny. And it's precisely when those "least bad" politicians let out the rallying cry of transparency and accountability, that those politicians should be held to the standards they are trying to impose. It comes as no surprise that asking for clear answers from Councilman Fulop would be characterized as "attacks" from his blindest followers. What's really scary about your post is that you compare a lack of gratitude to a divine being with somebody asking for a legitimate, transparent explanation for a politician's actions on a topic upon which he has has largely staked his reputation as a reformer. You'll pardon me if I don't look to elected representatives as divine, and don't make a habit of just being satisfied with what they deign to bestow upon us. If I'm hearing you correctly, it sound like you're suggesting that, because Fulop has (very) publicly taken on the corrupt machinery of Jersey City politics, people should just shut up and let him do his thing, because people can "assume" he has "good reasons". Call me crazy, but I don't make those kind of assumptions, especially in this town. When you do, you're basically opening the cookie jar for the pol in question. Cute story, thanks for proving my larger point entirely.
Posted on: 2008/3/31 0:07
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
"He had a HAT!!!!" again, +1 Fulop is the *one* person in municipal government taking the trouble to maintain any direct online contact via sites like jclist (by his own admission, Major Quimby "doesn't read email") ...and yet when Fulop urges us to attend council meetings, people here whine because doesn't instead post the minutes (re: Erie St). Keep posting, brewster - this site needs you (and thanks for the signature-worthy quote below)
Posted on: 2008/3/30 23:58
|
|||
|
"Someday a book will be written on how this city can be broke in the midst of all this development." ---Brewster
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Yeah that point was hard to miss, and I agree with it, but what's your larger point? The reason for your attacking the one member of JC's leadership attempting to inject some ethics and responsibility into city hall, rather than playing the usual patronage and crony game. You remind me of an old joke of my people: A Jewish mother is walking with her small son along the shore, enjoying the sounds and smells of the ocean. Suddenly, without warning, a huge wave comes in and washes the boy out to sea. The woman screams, but no one is nearby, and she can't swim. She sees her son's head bobbing up and down as he cries for help and moves farther and farther from shore. Desperate, she sinks to her knees in the sand. Pleading with God for mercy, she swears she will devote herself to good causes and be faithful in attending synagogue if God will spare her only child. Suddenly another huge wave crashes in, and deposits her son, wet but unhurt on the sand. She lifts her face to the heavens, extends both arms and cries... "He had a HAT!!!!" I assume Fulop had good reason to bend his stated policy, perhaps to get support from some other council member for another one of his initiatives. That's the way it's done. I remember people here slamming him for not getting anything done because he wouldn't play ball. Catch 22 anyone?
Posted on: 2008/3/30 23:25
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Glad somebody gets my point.
Posted on: 2008/3/30 21:05
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Sal, What IS your point? +1
Posted on: 2008/3/30 2:05
|
|||
|
"Someday a book will be written on how this city can be broke in the midst of all this development." ---Brewster
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
 
|
Quote:
So abatements for market rate projects in Paulus Hook ARE needed because, hell, no one wants to live there? 
Posted on: 2008/3/29 20:10
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/5/11 19:17 Last Login : 2016/2/7 17:42 From Ward E - Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
465
 |
Quote:
Fulop voted against the abatement for the Beacon, where you claim to reside. This shouldn't come as a surprise since Fulop has consistently rejected abatements that are not needed. Tax break intro for Med Center Originally appeared in the Jersey Journal on Thursday, July 14, 2005 By KEN THORBOURNE City Council members in Jersey City voted yesterday to introduce a measure that would grant a precedent-setting tax break for a project that would transform the old Jersey City Medical Center properties on Baldwin Avenue into a swanky condominium complex with screening rooms, rooftop restaurants and hot tubs. The proposed tax abatement would last 30 years and require the developer - Metrovest Equities of New York City - to pay the city 10 percent of annual gross revenue. The standard for tax abatements in Jersey City has been 20 years, with a 16 percent return of annual gross revenue. Deviations from the standard abatement agreement have normally been tied to the creation of affordable housing units, city officials said. But the Metrovest Equities project - known as the Beacon - involves all market-rate housing. City officials said the unique abatement is necessary because of the complexity of the Beacon project, and its potential to jump-start development in the center of the city, in much the same way the massive Newport development rejuvenated the waterfront. "A couple years ago, no one wanted to touch it (this property)," said Ward D Councilman William Gaughan on Monday, defending the tax abatement. "A lot of people will be part of a brand-new neighborhood." The City Council will take a final vote on whether or not to grant the tax abatement at their meeting next month. The lone vote yesterday against the tax abatement was Steve Fulop, the newly elected City Councilman from Ward E, who said the developer seemed to be getting "three bites at the apple." Fulop said the developer purchased the properties at a discount and initially claimed he could finance the $350 million project himself. Jersey City resident Lavern Washington also felt the tax break was an unnecessary give-away. "We gave that property to them (Metrovest Equities) and those people will have nothing affordable in that complex," Washington said. http://www.jcedc.org/new/jj071405.html
Posted on: 2008/3/29 19:47
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Sal,
What IS your point? If you want a politician who never, EVER modifies or abandons a stated policy, there's one in the white house who will soon be looking for work.
Posted on: 2008/3/29 19:31
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Why look, another change of subject! How utterly predictible. There's nothing absolutist about my criticism. I don't put any politicians on a pedestal. Fulop's own words on abatements speak for themselves as to what his position was when he asked his constituents to vote for him. I agree with that position (pre-election) that handing out abatements to developers to build luxury market-rate condominiums in already wealthy neighborhoods, without demanding much of anything in return from them except for a quick-fix way to make budgetary ends meet, is a perpetuation of a cycle I thought Fulop had committed to oppose. The continual presentation of false-choice argumentation and hide-the-ball is really disappointing. If you have such a nuanced and cynical view toward politicians already, why is having an honest discussion about where your councilman may have let you down such a threatening concept? I politely asked the Councilman to explain his reasons for voting yes to the abatement in Paulus Hook in January. I was stunned that his response consisted of three main points: 1.) That the person who brought attention to the fact that this vote took place must be doing it for political purposes, and therefore the focus should be on who presented the fact, not on the actual vote. 2.) That Fulop has voted to approve far fewer abatements than his colleagues on the council (and therefore his votes to approve luxury market rate condo abatements in his own wealthy neighborhood should therefore receive less scrutiny???) 3.) That the reason this was a "good" abatement was because it was for 16% instead of 10%. While r_pinkowitz may have (slightly) overstated that the Councilman is 100% against abatements, Fulop has certainly forged an image for himself as the one politician who will stand up to the practice of handing out abatements as a way of perpetuating an incredibly dysfunctional and irresponsible fiscal system. The vote in January suggests otherwise. With this in mind, I believe the Councilman owes his constituents a better explanation about his vote in January than the one he gave, or in lieu of that, a clarification of his position on abatements. Spitzer's downfall came about not simply because he got caught with whores, but because he held himself out to be some kind of paragon of ethics and virtue. When the story broke, the real meat of the issue was not the indiscretion, or even its illegality, but the hypocrisy.
Posted on: 2008/3/29 19:09
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
100 years ago Einstein proved we live in a relativistic world. A politician needs to be evaluated relative to the competition rather than perfection. Absolutists don't survive long in any political system. Yours is also the attitude that gets us leaders with thin resumes, rather than experience and long histories, which inevitably contain compromises that leave them vulnerable to your sort of absolutist criticism. Every election in my lifetime hasn't been about who's perfect, but who's less bad. Fulop has nearly continuously challenged the entrenched corrupt system. Who do you have that's less bad and electable, that considering a mayoral run? I think Lou Manzo has run and lost enough times to not be a viable candidate.
Posted on: 2008/3/29 16:21
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
It's my understanding that the Beacon is actually within Ward E (i was told it extended up to Baldwin Avenue), but considering Fulop is going to be asking for the entire city to vote for him for mayor, I don't know what relevance the question of "who's your councilperson and what's their voting record" has to the question of Fulop's vote for an abatement for a luxury condo project in Paulus Hook. Except maybe to suggest that "others" dare not question Fulop, which smacks of ulterior motives. Why is it so hard for the councilman (and his devotees) to hold him to account for not living up to his campaign commitments? I thought he was all about accountability and transparency, so why the need to change the subject?
Posted on: 2008/3/29 15:01
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/5/11 19:17 Last Login : 2016/2/7 17:42 From Ward E - Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
465
|
Quote:
Abatements are good or bad, depending on how they they are implemented. A major issue that many of us have with abatements is that the city has left too much on the table when offering abatement to developers. I don't think that Fulop has ever said that he would unconditionally vote against all abatements in ward E. Sal, what ward do you live in and what is your council person's voting record on abatements? Can we assume that unlike Fulop, your council person has voted for nearly every abatement that was offered? Do you have an ulterior motive for suggesting inconsistencies in Fulop's voting record?
Posted on: 2008/3/28 15:29
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I agree with you that Jersey City should stop giving out abatements for developments along the Hudson River just on principle. But I think the actual numbers are important, because I used to think when I was reading these discussions that maybe, say, the city had abated away $500 million in tax revenue, or something truly atrocious like that. As far as I can tell (and I welcome better numbers from someone who really knows the number) that's not the case. One thing I don't understand is how other communities manage to pay for their schools. I think we have about 30,000 kids attending schools in our district, or only about 12% of the population. Our schools are a little expensive on a per-kid basis, but not all that expensive when you adjust for the general cost of living here. It looks as the schools get about $1,200 in revenue per year from the 100,000 or so residents who earn enough to pay taxes, or who pay taxes by making rent payments to private-market landlords. The state pays about $4,800. That makes me wonder how the rich communities pay for schools, plus all the other state and local government services. Are the residents and businesses in other communities really paying, say, $20,000 in state and local taxes per family per year, or some horrendous figure like that? Or is the answer that the percentage Jersey City kids enrolled in the public schools is unusually high and throws the figures off?
Posted on: 2008/3/28 15:02
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Well, here's Fulop's position on granting abatements, (at least when he was running for office), lest we try to keep changing the subject: SF: "I?m not against abatements per se ? but I do have objections to the way they?re currently being used. You want to use abatements to stimulate development in parts of the city where development wouldn?t ordinarily occur. But right now, they?re being used to plug budget gaps so that the City Council doesn?t have to raise taxes. The Council will give out abatements anywhere, because they?ve become addicted to the quick fiscal fix. We need to develop a long-term fiscal policy that doesn?t rely on these crutches. "This isn?t about hostility to development. I think we?ve all cultivated some ambivalence on this issue, and we now know that developers are not these big bad beasts all the time. But by and large, Ward E does not need development stimulus anymore." And if Ward E by and large does not need development stimulus anymore, Paulus Hook most certainly does not need development stimulus.
Posted on: 2008/3/28 2:33
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2007/10/14 15:17 Last Login : 2017/11/13 17:19 From time to time
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
223
|
Quote:
alb wrote: Whatever the numbers are, this is not the point. There will be no windfall. You can't eliminate the existing abatements. You can only stop granting new ones. Stopping future tax abatements will not restore lost funds to the education budget. It will stop the process from getting worse. The best reason to stop abatements is that they are pure giveaways in an area undergoing enormous organic growth due to its ideal location vis a vis NYC. Abatements could make sense in areas of the city that are not benefitting from new development, but in downtown they are an abuse of the program.
Posted on: 2008/3/28 1:48
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Are you for or against Abatements? ...or a third option, do you examine each abatement individually, taking things as location, interest rate, and term length into account? (as Fulop seems to be doing) This blanket for/against thing seems a little silly/simplistic. I'm sorry. Please don't delete my post. A better blanket question might be: ""Do you favor ever renegotiating existing signed agreements after the fact to benefit developers (i.e. lowering interest rates, providing low interest loans, scuttling redevelopment plans)?"
Posted on: 2008/3/27 23:42
|
|||
|
"Someday a book will be written on how this city can be broke in the midst of all this development." ---Brewster
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Although i agree he seems a bit snippy here pinky but the truth is your old boss Jr Maldonado is looking to run again next year. Are you for or against Abatements? I am against them except for Sr buildings,low income and the occasional Rehab.
Posted on: 2008/3/27 22:13
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I think one thing that gets overlooked in abatement discussions is that the school board budget is really big, and the revenue lost to abatements is not necessarily that huge.
I think the school budget is something like $500 million or $600 million, or maybe $5,000 to $6,000 per resident who truly earns enough to be paying taxes. My understanding (which could be wrong; I've been trying to piece this together and haven't found a great description that incorporates numbers) is that maybe we have about a $2 billion in tax-abated property on the waterfront. If that's a correct figure, and the owners would normally be paying about 2 percent of that value in property taxes, then the abatements might be costing us about $40 million in tax revenue. If that estimate is correct (again: I welcome corrections), it might be that eliminating the abatements would be the right thing to do, and it might help us cope with cuts in state support, but it might not flood our schools with extra cash. Also: I think that one unfortunate thing is that people will say, "It's terrible that I have to pay taxes to support those schools when the schools are so terrible!!" My experience is that all of the downtown schools are reasonably well run, especially at the lower grade levels. I can understand why people might send their children to private schools or charter schools, but the regular zone schools downtown are certainly doing well enough that they deserve our support.
Posted on: 2008/3/27 22:04
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2004/11/7 17:04 Last Login : 2015/2/24 18:16 From "Pay for Play"
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1531
|
A quick search on Tris McCall's excellent site, The Tris McCall Report led me to an interview
Tris did with then Ward E candidate Steven Fulop in March 2005:   I sat down with Steven Fulop at LITM to talk politics, the structure of government, and the future of Jersey City ? and why he believes he?s the man to guide Ward E into it. On governmental reform His personal story His race against Menendez On Downtown tax abatements On the Powerhouse Arts District On Mayor Healy and the HCDO On the percieved spike in crime On Restaurant Row and Newark Ave. On opposing a prominent Latino leader Quote: TM: When Cunningham defeated Tom DeGise to become mayor, he temporarily won the support of anti-abatement activists. Do you consider yourself the anti-abatement candidate in this race?
Posted on: 2008/3/27 21:44
|
|||
 Help US Sue Spectra! Join OR Donate! |
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Councilman Fulop: I thought that the philosophical and fiscal problem with allowing the City to continue to feed from the abatement trough is that it is a never-ending cycle that must at some point, at least for luxury market rate condominium housing in already wealthy neighborhoods, be stood up to and spoken out against. Because it's the right thing to do. And because the incentive to build luxury housing that does not contribute to our City's schools or to our County infrastructure, and places an ever-escalating burden on ordinary tax-paying home-owners, already exists in neighborhoods like Paulus Hook (where you live) and Newport. Whether it's 16% or 10%, continuing to indulge the myth that development will cease unless abatements are handed out (and the corresponding fear-mongering that goes along with that) is entirely contrary to what I thought your position on the issue was. I'd like to think your constituents are smart enough to recognize that "I'm the least bad" does not equal "I'm good", so I think talking around the issue before finally confronting the question you were asked is where the real "spin" in this thread is. And there's nothing more political than attributing nefarious purposes to the messenger, instead of simply responding to the message.
Posted on: 2008/3/27 20:57
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
You gotta love it...... I mean, if the shoe fits!
Posted on: 2008/3/27 20:14
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
the council is actually readjusting some already agreed upon abatements to this lower number. This makes me nuts - if it's true, I'd like to know which one(s). And I'd also like to read some justification for the city to be in the business of indemnifying commercial developers against risk associated with business condition changes occurring *after* they sign agreements with the city - do developers renegotiate agreements to give the city more $ if things break *their* way? I wonder.... Quote: ...using my nickname the way you did just shows how childish you really are I gotta tell say, compared to 'mayors-gone-wild' Healy and the rest of the council (Willie Flood et al), Steve Fulop is the *least* childish person over there at city hall. Quote: So, now we all know that you do support abatements, it just depends on the terms. Help me out here, isn't that the way it's supposed to work? (...I mean, how *dare* he compare interest rates!! - what a showoff!!)
Posted on: 2008/3/27 20:01
|
|||
|
"Someday a book will be written on how this city can be broke in the midst of all this development." ---Brewster
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Actually, I thought it was kind of cute! 
Posted on: 2008/3/27 19:44
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2006/4/18 0:04 Last Login : 2021/10/2 19:00 From Jersey Cxxx
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1404
|
Quote:
I love how anyone who challenges the almighty Fulop is doing it because they have a political agenda, and using my nickname the way you did just shows how childish you really are. Here is the bottom line Councilman Fulop, I posted it for one reason and one reason only, you voted in favor of abatement for Market Rate Luxury Condominiums in the Paulus Hook section of Jersey City. What ever the terms are it?s still a tax abatement and coming from someone who has repeatedly and adamantly denounced abatements this came as a shock. So, now we all know that you do support abatements, it just depends on the terms.
Posted on: 2008/3/27 19:31
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Salonthehill,
I didn?t even see this thread but happy to respond. Let me start with the ulterior motives post as there was nothing that I stood to gain personally from this vote and I think that is evident by all public disclosure that I file. If you look at my voting record as it relates to abatements, in fairness it is not really accurate to say that I have opposed all abatements 100% of the time. Robin Pinky posted that for political reasons but it is not based in fact at all. I have always said that abatements have a place and are a useful tool when used in a fair way for resident?s benefits however the policy of abating everything and then renegotiating them lower is detrimental. My voting record shows this. For certain, I have the most conservative voting record on the council with regards to abatements, however, I have voted for some based on each abatement?s individual circumstances. I try to look at each abatement based on different factors including location of the project, economic conditions of that particular abatement to the city, length of the abatement, and the city?s situation at the time. The most troubling aspect of this particular abatement was the location but as I will explain below other factors were part of the decision. This particular abatement referenced here was a rare one from a financial point that we don?t see anymore at 16% which contributes significantly more than what we see today (we likely won?t see any like this again). The majority of the abatements now are coming in at 10% and the council is actually readjusting some already agreed upon abatements to this lower number. The city has seen a slow down as you can imagine in applications and starts (50 Columbus, 2nd Trump Towers, etc..) per the budget projections, however this is one project that will get started in the near term at a rate that was a higher than any other- hus I thought it made sense. You may disagree, and I did recognize at the time that people may spin it as Robin did for political reasons, however my record has been consistent in trying to advocate best I can for the people I represent to fair terms with regards to services or taxes. Hope that clarifies how I thought about this particular abatement. Steve
Posted on: 2008/3/27 17:47
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Hey Councilman Fulop (since you're visiting the website today), I think some people on here were hoping for an explanation as to why you voted yes to an abatement in Paulus Hook as recently as this January.
If you have an opportunity, people would love to hear from you on this issue. Thanks. Quote:
Posted on: 2008/3/27 15:47
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
On the east end of Essex near the ecology street. The number escapes me, must have been abated from my head. I think it has something to do with trombones or the spirit of. Remember you have 4 council members you voted for here in Jersey City.
Posted on: 2008/3/21 17:39
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Politicians have their alterior motives. And some people who are just friends of some of the politicians who want them to run for some sort of political title so the abatement saga can continue...
Posted on: 2008/3/21 17:07
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Sooooo disapointed. Why did he do that?
Posted on: 2008/3/21 17:02
|
|||
|
||||