Browsing this Thread:
1 Anonymous Users
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Quote:
It's clear that the shills are disregarding this thread in the hopes that it goes away, instead of responding openly. Bottom line: I have never in my life voted in an election where I didn't have my eyes wide open, and where I didn't have to hold my nose at least a little. I like to know what I'm getting myself into, in order to honestly weigh who to pull the lever for. The hypocrisy of the politics being played in this thread kills me: those who look to Councilman Fulop to bring accountability and transparency to City Hall, are willing to obfuscate and sweep legitimate concerns about his voting record under the rug to get him there. If that ain't politics as usual, I don't know what is.
Posted on: 2008/4/4 16:34
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
Don't you think that you're being absolutist and rigid? I don't understand why we're not allowed to question politicians. I think it's great that Steve chooses to use his forum to speak with his constituents. Plus, it gives people outside of his ward access to his initiatives and policies. However, if he does something that is contrary to what he presented during his campaign then people deserve a valid explanation as to why there was a strategic shift. Maybe when he reads the dissenting view on this thread, it will give him something to think about when future abatements votes happen. And the way you throw Bush around is like comparing apples and licorice. Last I checked, he and his supporters didn't welcome open debate.
Posted on: 2008/4/3 0:37
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Hey omar and samual, you forgot to reply to this thread...
...oh, waaaaaaitaminute... Welcome to silly season, folks! You go witcha perception-controllin' selves! (P.S. Thanks Webmaster, for making the front page so much longer - makes it more of a task for the political shills to drive stuff off it!)
Posted on: 2008/4/2 17:25
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
You can't stop something you never started. And you were clearly more intent on spinning criticism away from Fulop than talking about the impact of his voting for a luxury market-rate abatement on the waterfront. Quote: Like I said, yours is the impeccable logic and absolutism that brought us Bush. Maybe we'll get another Mayor Cunningham!! Ahhhh the irony. The Mayor Cunningham to whom Steve Fulop owes his political career? I guess it's easy to forget things when you're busy sticking your head in the sand and only listening to the things you want to hear.
Posted on: 2008/4/2 4:12
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Sal, I can't play anymore. There's no getting through. You win. Yay!!
Like I said, yours is the impeccable logic and absolutism that brought us Bush. Maybe we'll get another Mayor Cunningham!! Have fun, don't forget to turn out the lights.
Posted on: 2008/4/2 3:39
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Here's the posts you left out, brewster:
Quote:
What's that? You criticizing the actions of Schundler? But where is the comparative to offer you the ascertainable standard that tells you the actions you're describing above were the wrong thing for Schundler to do? They aren't there, because you used common sense, human, normative standards to objectively evaluate the actions taken by an elected official in office that you consider illegitimate or inappropriate. Just as I have done in challenging Fulop's reversal on his position on waterfront abatements in this thread. If you feel the need to add disclaimers to your positions, that's your prerogative, but it's absurd to suggest that the actions taken by politicians in office have no objective standards by which they can be measured, and can only be quantified relative to other actions taken by others. In the absence of a better explanation than the one he gave earlier on this thread, I consider Councilman Fulop's January 2008 vote in favor of a 20-year abatement on market-rate luxury condos in Paulus Hook to be a reversal of a previously held position upon which he has largely staked his public image as a reformer. I'm holding him to the standards he himself has been publicly demanding all politicians be held to. If you'd like me to compare him (as I have already done in previous responses) to his fellow council members - I know of no other council person who has so vociferously denounced the city's abatement policy for waterfront development. So while I detest the others for perpetuating the cycle, I can't call them hypocrites on the issue. And Fulop has disappointed more than just myself by voting for this amendment (see other posts in this thread). Here's an interesting exchange from the same thread: Quote:
Again, you speak of the train wreck Schundler created in objective terms, and then, my favorite part, is that you deflect PubliusIII's subject-change in exactly the same way I have been responding to you, scooter, and super_furry in this thread! By putting into perspective that citing our current Mayor for his disastrousness and citing Schundler for his failures need not be mutually exclusive. Just as my questioning Fulop and seeking to inject some reality into the mystique surrounding him is not the same thing as endorsing the activities of the rest of City Hall. It's disappointing that you're so threatened by having an objective conversation about where Fulop may have let you down, and that you're determined to apply certain rules to discussions about him that you don't apply in your discussions about others.
Posted on: 2008/4/1 20:45
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
SalOnTheHill wrote:
Quote:
Innaccurate. Read my comments from the Schundler thread. They are totally relative to other candidates: Quote: As a recent arrival, I voted for Schundler's 2nd term, I don't think I would do so again. But given our nonpartisan system of unlimited candidates and some of the of the possible horrific candidates that the fates might send up in runoff against Schundler, I can't rule out a vote for him. He may be a sacrosanct, self serving, blowhard, but at least he's not a drunken idiot.
Posted on: 2008/4/1 20:18
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
So you're actually saying that the only valid way to evaluate a politician's actions while in office are in comparison to what other politicians are doing? By that same logic, your stated gripes against Schundler (which I agree with) are invalid because you're examining actions taken by a politician without comparing that politician to others. I call BS on your whole line of reasoning, and suspect it's a conveniently crafted argumentation style that fits only when you're looking to preserve your own politician's public image. I think it's really unproductive, and deceptive, to suggest that when a politician's highly publicized rhetoric on a key issue is incongruous with how that politician has voted, as recently as 2 months ago, on that very issue, that the voter should simply give that politician a pass and not challenge them on it. You don't see the forest for the trees, man. And you think not talking about these issues in advance of the full swing of the election, when you can bet your sweet ass that the opposition will be talking about these issues, in great detail, is helpful to Fulop? The sooner he directly deals with the issues that have his hands dirty (this being far from the only one), the better he will be able to refute them when they're the subject of editorials in the JJ. Those seeking to rabidly "protect" their candidates from scrutiny end up doing them more harm in the long run than those who question them openly and invite scrutiny upon them. You and your merry band of cheerleaders are doing Fulop no favors. Edit: As for the "not perfect" attack accusation - it's another of your fallacious arguments. I never suggested that any elected official is or could ever be "perfect", or that such a pipe dream is realistic. Holding an elected representative to the positions they espouse when asking for votes and the public persona they diligently create for themselves is not asking them to be perfect. It is asking them to be accountable.
Posted on: 2008/4/1 18:45
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Dan, competition is great. That means comparing 2 different candidates, not simply attacking the 1 city official who most agrees with your position because he isn't "perfect". It's that "in isolation" rather than by comparison part that gets me crazy, and made others think he's a troll, that is, making an argument he really doesn't support. If there's a comparison to be made to Manzo, it was not in there. Perhaps you'd like to make it, I'm sure it would be informative. I see this "he's not perfect" attack as the same logic that caused people to vote for Nader, because Gore had some warts. We all know where that got us. The folks who claimed in 2000 there was no difference between the Dems and GOP have seen how wrong they were in the larger picture. Lets not repeat the error and split our votes so far that none of our reform candidates make the runoff. I'm not saying Manzo or anyone else should walk away in favor of Fulop, but let the debate be rational and based on comparisons to each other, not some fictional ideal.
Posted on: 2008/4/1 18:14
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
As somebody committed to bringing about real change in this City, who does more than simply sit behind a computer screen typing, I respect your chiming in on the issue, DanL. Again, glad to see informed people with a healthy understanding of the political landscape who can be objective enough to look at an issue and call it for what it is, even if the candidate in question is still the person you would support. I think it's insulting that scooter, super_furry, and brewster think people are happy to fall for the constant subject changing and controlling of perception. I'm curious if DanL is going to be the next person to be labeled a troll or a "Sal-ette" for not towing their party line.
Posted on: 2008/4/1 16:37
|
|||
|
||||
|
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:
No, no, no, no...I don't need anyone coming to my rescue. I always know what cards are in my hand 24/7!!! Seriously s_f, before you put personal friendships and "out of the internet" friendships on the line, you may want to take a deep breath before posting. Never, ever put politics or a politician before friendships. Your friends are there for the long run, the politicians are there only when they need your vote....don't ever forget that!
Posted on: 2008/4/1 14:54
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2004/2/6 23:13 Last Login : 2021/7/30 1:08 From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1225
|
maybe, but if you look at his legislative record he has been active and perhaps should be considered along with the rest.
Quote:
Posted on: 2008/4/1 14:51
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2004/2/6 23:13 Last Login : 2021/7/30 1:08 From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1225
|
how can Sal not be right.....
both Councilman Fulop and Mayor Healy said they opposed waterfront abatements when campaigning. if Councilman Fulop runs for Mayor, he will get pounded on about these issues, not just abatements, but developer contributions and the likely partnering with long time politicos looking get on his train.... some he will defend, some (hopefully, but unlikely) ignore.... competition is good as opposed to being brokered and the campaign will be "bloody", lets all hope more people than in the past take advantage of their right to vote. now lets get back to Lou Manzo and abatements....
Posted on: 2008/4/1 14:47
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
It's reassuring to know that there are some rational folks who understand the value of honest debate, and appreciate that our job as voters is to hold all politicians accountable. Quote:
And again, the personal attacks and the attempts to discredit, in lieu of actually responding substantively to the matter at issue. Spin spin spin...
Posted on: 2008/4/1 14:38
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
...sit back and braid Steve's hair argumentative, and just a little creepy... :) (and I told myself I wouldn't post to this thread anymore! :)
Posted on: 2008/4/1 14:31
|
|||
|
"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
|
Talk about beating a horse to death.
Who ever said the kid walks on water?Its just that in comparison to the rest of the council he looks better by default. I don't think Sal is a troll for City Hall. I think he definitely has an argumentative style though,kind of reminds me of Non-Downtown.
Posted on: 2008/4/1 12:41
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Well said, Rory Bellows. As for the name-calling and this growing debate, I don't think it's fair to call any of the participants here a "troll" since they are all pretty regular and otherwise upstanding members of this little online community of ours. Don't let JC List politics get as muddled as JC politics 
Posted on: 2008/4/1 1:44
|
|||
|
||||
|
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
|
Calling Sal a troll because he is questioning, is like someone saying that Brewster and super_ furry are trolls because they have a different view. Everyone has there own views and opinions and I respect them for it, even if it differs from mine.
Posted on: 2008/4/1 0:56
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Exactly: when all else fails to silence the dissenter, close the ranks and attempt to discredit him or her, instead of responding to the issue directly and objectively. With staunch supporters like you guys, I can predict exactly the type of administration Fulop would have as Mayor: one where questioning the Mayor's office is never considered, and where those who dare to question are at best dismissed without explanation. Boy, that sounds like such a change from the status quo.  [P.S. I love that the term "troll" has now taken on the definition of one who won't simply shut up when holding thought-out, articulated, politically unpopular positions. It's like the new Godwin's Law.]
Posted on: 2008/3/31 18:55
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I guess you're right. This is someone who would saw off the tree limb he's standing on.
Posted on: 2008/3/31 18:44
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
The guy who thinks Fulop has "once" voted contrary to his campaign platform is calling somebody else naive? With exclamation points? Riotously funny, man. My side hurts. Thanks for that. Quote:
I love when, in attempting to keep changing the subject, a kernel of an on-topic point is accidentally reached. My problem with Fulop, with this abatement vote, and with his explanation for it, is precisely what you're decrying above: that he (and his followers, though they much more pathologically than the Councilman) refuse to accept that such a hypocritical inconsistency was a mistake. As for simplistic attitudes, pardon me if I don't take my lectures on simplistic attitudes from those that try to bully others into not questioning politicians because they "assume" their pols "had good reason". Kim Jong Il is looking for more people like you, brewster. Quote:
Again with the unsurprising change in topic, but you're so far off base in your allegation it isn't even funny. It's precisely because I have a grasp of the big picture, a natural predisposition to not purchase bridges being sold to me, and a healthy aversion to JC political office being used for strategic, long-term, political aspirational purposes (cough Schundler cough), that I am unwilling to stick my head in the sand and sit back and braid Steve's hair like you guys.
Posted on: 2008/3/31 18:29
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
the best way to deal with trolls is to ignore them I for one am taking super_furry's advice to heart, brewster...
Posted on: 2008/3/31 18:29
|
|||
|
"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
|
My lord Sal you are one freakin bulldog! So what even if Fulop did what you say: once voting contrary to his campaign platform. How freaking naive are you!! what's the point of complaining the 4/5 full glass is 1/5 empty, when you're in a freaking desert!! Take your show to Healy and the rest, no, wait, they nor their cronies are online or give crap what you say, they buy their votes wholesale, not solicit them retail here.
Like I said way back, it's simplistic attitudes like your that get us leaders like Bush, with a thin political track record and a pathological fear of EVER admitting making a mistake, or even changing policy to meet changing data. One of my problems with the Democratic campaign is that it basically winnowed out candidates by how much they had ever said or done, the most experienced going first. Hillary spend 7 years in the senate desperately trying to play it safe and is losing to a guy with an even thinner record. People like you who are unwilling or unable to look at the big picture rather than seeing things in black and white are driving the process into a race to the bottom.
Posted on: 2008/3/31 18:15
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Spoken like a true political operative: when somebody questions the actions of your guy, continually and desperately try to spin the conversation to how bad his opponents are. As for the 8 to 1 votes - I'm all the more curious as to why the Paulus Hook abatement approved in January (you know, the thing you keep trying to steer the conversation away from), wasn't another one of those votes. It makes Fulop's 'yes' vote all the more mysterious. And no, I'm not willing to look the other way just this once. But thanks for asking. Here's the truth: I have absolutely no fondness for any politicians in City Hall. I would be happy if all the bums were thrown out. I find little need to illustrate how bad the rest of the council is because frankly, it speaks for itself. Conversations about how green the grass is or how blue the sky is don't do much for me either. I also don't see too many pie-in-the-sky devotees of any of "the 8" spinning reality on this website in favor of their people, and as soon as I do, I'll be happy to offer up a similar reality check. But again, that's unlikely to happen, and "the 8" don't seem as intent on convincing their constituents that they spend their free time helping little old ladies cross the street. As much as "the 8" are ineffectual and entrenched (to varying degrees) in the political machinery of yesterday, they aren't holding themselves out to be a Spitzerian pinnacle of ethics and virtue the way Fulop is. My disdain for hypocrisy and double-speak is at least as strong as my disdain for bossism and cronyism. Where you and brewster and super_furry seem happy to choose one poison over another, divorced from scrutiny for their guy, I'll continue to question "the one" who, to me, is telling the people exactly what they want to hear and spinning a compelling narrative for a long-term political career, but doesn't seem to have hands as clean as his followers want to blindly believe. As for super_furry's troll accusation, I take it from whence it comes. I have backed up my position and will continue to do so. Thanks for the armchair pyschoanalysis though, but I wouldn't quit your day job if I were you. If you're sore that you looked foolish because the Councilman reversed his position on the Beacon vote, try taking it out on him, not the person who brought the truth out. I get that some people see Fulop as the best the City can do. Maybe they're right. But the paranoid freakouts his followers have at the thought that he might need to be kept politically accountable for his actions, as every politician should, are baffling. As Fulop is fond of saying, "sunlight is the best medicine". I find it curious that his fan club is so threatened by some of that sunlight landing on Councilman Fulop.
Posted on: 2008/3/31 16:33
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
I actually think Sal is asking very good questions of Mr. Fulop. NO elected official who works for the people should go unquestioned. I live in Ward E and I am generally a fan of Fulop's but am a bit disappointed with his seemingly hypocritical vote for this particular abatement.
I also think this is a perfectly good forum to discuss such things. This site is used as a communication tool by Fulop's supporters and Fulop himself to discuss various initiatives and issues, so I think it is completely appropriate to discuss some of his more questionable votes or other actions. At the end of the day though, I don't think that this vote means that Fulop should be crucified and, if he decides to run for mayor in 2009, he will still likely shine as the candidate that gets my vote when held up against the alternatives.
Posted on: 2008/3/31 16:05
|
|||
|
||||
|
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:
r_pinkowitz wrote: Thanks for finding it. The Reporter article didn't come up in my search.
Posted on: 2008/3/31 15:22
|
|||
|
||||
|
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:
Not exactly. This is a game for Sal. He is attempting to receive gratification by having Fulop respond to his posts. I think the councilman knows better. Sal wrote: I asked (Fulop) a direct question about this abatement because I had seen him use JCList to promote his Erie Street Stop Sign proposal that very day, and figured he could give some answers. I wouldn't think any less of Councilman Fulop if he chose not to communicate with a small segment of his constituents on JCList and GetNJ... If Sal really cared about the issue he would contact Fulop directly, but of course he won't. Sal is a troll, and the best way to deal with trolls is to ignore them.
Posted on: 2008/3/31 15:18
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
What's mysterious is your failure to appreciate (as in: transitive verb1 a: to grasp the nature or significance of) the difference between Fulop and the rest of the council.
How many more 8-1 votes would it take, I wonder, for you to admit that. Yet you remain resolutely silent on the rest of the council members and the mayor (*their* votes/positions and their performance in general) - I can only assume you're with the "8" rather than the "1", which of course is your right - but then be straight up about it, don't try a Jersey City version of 'swift-boating' Fulop...
Posted on: 2008/3/31 12:19
|
|||
|
"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
Joined:
2006/4/18 0:04 Last Login : 2021/10/2 19:00 From Jersey Cxxx
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1404
|
Quote:
s_f, This is the follow up story to the one you posted..I see how you overlooked it, the Jersey Journal didn't print a follow up but the Hudson Reporter did. This is from the The Jersey City Reporter 08/13/2005 Tax abatement for condo project Council approves deal for phase I of 1,200 units at old Med Center Ricardo Kaulessar Reporter staff writer WHERE DO I GO ? Essie Williams, a longtime Jersey City resident, speaks at Wednesday?s City Council meeting against an abatement that was eventually granted to the first part of the old Medical Center development project. After listening to approximately 20 speakers, the City Council on Wednesday approved a controversial 30-year tax abatement for the first phase of a 1,200-unit condo project at the site of the old Jersey City Medical Center. The $350 million Medical Center project, being developed by New York-based Metrovest Equities, will see the old 10-building complex transformed into 1,200 condominiums, shops, a central courtyard, a dog run, a restaurant, and a grocery store. It will go by the name of The Beacon. The abatement approved on Wednesday is only for the first phase of the project, creating a mixed-use facility with 314 residential units and 64,821 square feet of office/retail space. There will also be a parking garage with 1,049 spaces. The buildings to be redeveloped in phase I will be the center building at the old Baldwin Avenue main entrance, with nearby buildings called the Rialto and Capitol. The main entrance for the new project will be on Montgomery Street. Metrovest Equities President George Filopoulos said the groundbreaking will take place in October and there are already crews on site doing cleanup inside. Construction will take place over a 15-month period with completion between December 2006 and January 2007. Speaking against abatements The council's approval came after hearing more than 20 speakers for over two hours, the majority of whom voiced their disapproval of the abatement. Some didn't want the city to grant an abatement to another wealthy developer. Others protested the fact that more market-rate apartments will be built at a time when affordable housing is needed. But the council cited the project's impact upon an area of the city in dire need of revitalization. A tax abatement is an agreement to exempt a developer from regular fluctuating property taxes. There is usually a separate revenue deal in place for the developer to pay money to the city over 20 or 30 years. In the last few years, the agreements have become controversial because some people don't believe developers really need the extra incentive to build. The city benefits from abatements because the resulting Payment in Lieu of Tax (PILOT) money goes straight to the city rather than being split among the city, county and schools, like most local taxes. Where's our affordable housing? A number of people who spoke out against the abatement were residents who are members of ACORN, the international organization advocating for affordable housing. They were looking at the Medical Center development project as more luxury condo units being built in a city where there is few if any affordable housing being constructed. In previous council meetings, ACORN members disrupted council meetings in protest against the approval of abatements. They have tried to get city officials to utilize the money from the city's Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Developers contribute to the fund, whose money is supposed to go to new affordable housing. "I just want to know where we are supposed to go. I go to all the council meetings, I go to the community meetings, and all the developments that are going on in Jersey City are not affordable - at all," said Mona Brinson, a mother of two. "I struggle to pay rent every day. I work to pay it." Essie Williams, a grandmother of two and a 30-plus year resident, told the council that she is facing eviction from her building on Sept. 1. She said she found that the apartment with the lowest rent she has found is $775 a month, but many are $1,300 or more. There were also speakers not affiliated with ACORN who complained about the abatement. Daniel Sicardi, a homeowner for 17 years near Lincoln Park, railed against the abatement as another in a line of abatements. Placing the increased tax burden upon homeowners. "The people with the choicest piece of property are going to get a free ride, and the people who are barely making ends meet like myself are going to have to deal with an increase [in the future] in property taxes that are slated at 250 percent," said Sicardi. Some in favor There were some who were in favor of the abatement's approval. Alan Bardack, president of Bardack Reality on Montgomery Street, only a few blocks away from the old Medical Center, said the abatement will bring development to the McGinley Square area. This is one of many areas that has been neglected over the years while downtown Jersey City and the waterfront have been reborn. Jeff Kaplowitz, a longtime Jersey City resident and licensed Realtor, was sympathetic to those in opposition to the abatement, but said that the abatements, like many granted in the past, lure developers to an area that was not previously considered desirable. "Abatements on the waterfront probably today are not warranted...but the incentive for tax abatements in the rest of Jersey City has its merits," said Kaplowitz. Kaplowitz is also a former Planning Board chairman. Kaplowitz said that the old Medical Center, when owned by the city of Jersey City, was costing the city hundreds of thousands of dollars to maintain. City Council members agreed with Kaplowitz's assessment as they approved the abatement. City Councilman-at-Large Peter Brennan commended the developer for taking on a difficult project, wondering if he was "sane" for committing the money. Ward F Councilwoman Viola Richardson also voted in favor, but not before she scolded the council for approving abatements without making sure that developers live up to their agreement to hire local residents and especially minorities for jobs on the projects. She also scolded Filopoulos, who was present at the meeting, for seeking a 30-year instead of a 20-year abatement. Ward E Councilman Steven Fulop, who voted against introducing the ordinance at the previous City Council meeting in July, voted in favor this time but requested that he and other council members have a meeting to change the city's abatement policy.
Posted on: 2008/3/31 10:39
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Assemblyman Lou Manzo ripped Jersey City yesterday about abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Let's not go down the road of further confusing the issue by suggesting Councilman Fulop has approved a "single abatement" in his tenure as a Councilman. Because that's an utter fallacy. If you were referring to this single abatement at issue in January 2008, for luxury market-rate housing in Paulus Hook, that's one thing. But you know and I know this is certainly not the only abatement Fulop has voted for. For an example, please ask super_furry to follow up on the Jersey Journal story he pasted into this thread. IIRC, Fulop voted against introducing the ordinance for the Beacon's abatement (less than two weeks after being sworn in, mind you). I'm trying to find a report on how Councilman Fulop voted when the actual abatement itself came to a vote. Because I was under the impression that Councilman Fulop had actually voted for the Beacon abatement plan when the actual ordinance was voted on. If I'm wrong, please correct me. I replied to Fulop's response, politely and lengthily, to explain why it didn't satisfy me. Specifically to the point that whether the abatement was 16% or 10%, my understanding of his position on abatements was that they should not be used as a budgetary quick-fix, in areas in need of no artificial stimulus for development. Regardless of the rate. When he ran for office, his position was clear: Fulop: 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. If an abatement is 20% or even 30%, that doesn't change the fact that it is irresponsible to manipulate the tax system, short change our schools and our county infrastructure, and shift the burden of property tax increases onto traditional tax-paying homeowners. To continue with Councilman Fulop's "addiction" metaphor, it's like the equivalent of saying this abatement will get you a lot higher, so it's somehow a more responsible choice. Quote:
Fulop's use of this medium is a two-way street, and I asked him a direct question about this abatement because I had seen him use JCList to promote his Erie Street Stop Sign proposal that very day, and figured he could give some answers. I wouldn't think any less of Councilman Fulop if he chose not to communicate with a small segment of his constituents on JCList and GetNJ, and I don't particularly think any more of him because he does. His use of this board is not solely informational, it's political as well, and I give him credit for being savvy enough to tap into the political opportunities it provides. But I'm not going to get down on my knees and thank a politician for doing something that benefits him politically. Quote:
I never made such an assumption in this thread or any other. I spoke specifically to the abatement Councilman Fulop voted for in January of this year, for luxury market-rate condos in arguably the richest neighborhood of downtown (where he happens to live). When he has specifically stated that abatements shouldn't be used to plug budget gaps, and should be used to provide incentives to develop where incentives are necessary. I agree that abatements should be approached individually. And I don't think all abatements are bad. I do think abatements in the city's wealthiest neighborhoods, regardless of whether at 16% or 10%, and regardless of whether construction is scheduled to begin tomorrow or four years from now, are irresponsible and should be opposed. I thought this was how Councilman Fulop felt about abatements. And many other people I have spoken to who read the Jersey Journal and vote thought likewise. I think a better explanation is in order, and I'm not going to apologize to a politician (or their devotees) for asking questions. No matter how many times they change the subject, or how many times they try to shift the focus to what others in city hall are doing. Quote:
As stated above, I acknowledge that Fulop has been accessible on JCList (and that he has used this medium to his advantage). I bristle when I'm told to "appreciate" things politicians do, considering they're supposed to work for us. Either way, I don't know what this "mystery" has to do with the issue of the Paulus Hook abatement.
Posted on: 2008/3/31 1:22
|
|||
|
||||