For the sake of the aforementioned clarity, want to reiterate some point:

- it matters not if the adopted regulation mimics some existing regulation,

- it matters not that there is more to it than the union clause,

- it matters not how often you receive financial support from a union or other special interests and whether it is for "any substance".

The only thing that does matter is, - your job is to look after the benefits of the Jersey City taxpayers.

And every single dollar that you milk out of some business for the benefit of the union - is the dollar that you did not milk for the benefit of the taxpayers.

And, by the way, when you negotiate the payments to the city employees and contractors, - you are supposed to represent us, the taxpayers, the employers - not the other way around.

You want to work for the union or for the contractors, - it is perfectly fine with me. But if this is the case you should seek employment with them, and draw your pay from them.

Quote:

Dear Sir,

Since you mentioned clarity, allow me, as one of your employers, to clarify something here.

Your job is to organize essential services for the taxpayers of the Jersey City. Your job is to look after our pockets.

If you think that City council has time to spare to deal with something else - take a pay cut, and work part-time. If you think City has extra resources, - slash the taxes. If you think you can milk some business without scaring it away, - do it for our benefit.

You were given a choice between doing something that benefits JC taxpayers and what benefits unions, - and you chose to help unions. This would not do.

Now, I am not saying that to disparage the worthy cause you dedicate yourself to. I am saying you should pursue that cause on your own time, and at your own expense.

Till the next election.

Thanks for posting this and a couple aspects to highlight here to lend some clarity. First, I generally don?t vote for abatements and furthermore, I can say that the building trades have not been financial supporters of any substance to this point of my campaign nor do I expect that to change.

Regardless of financial support, it doesn?t change my view that when the city uses subsidies to private developers for market rate housing there is an opportunity to ensure that both certain numbers of people get the opportunity to work from Jersey City and that fair wages are paid. This ordinance was enacted only to mirror what was already existing for the long term abatement. Many developers were circumventing this aspect of the PLA for the long term abatement by asking for steeper short term incentives even in areas that didn?t seem to warrant it. In order to close that loophole the council enacted this ordinance which mirrors the long term policy already in place.

With regards to only union here, that isn?t the case if you read the ordinance and I think there is an opportunity for more than that in the development world we currently see in Jersey City. The size of the project determines whether the PLA is applicable per the ordinance (benchmark is currently $25m) with less than that threshold it doesn?t apply.

Hope that lends some additional clarity on the background here.
Steve

Ditto on that one MDM. I am very disappointed.
I have addressed these issues years ago when the waterfront was full speed ahead and we had a million outside contractors working in JC. What is union LAbor? I will tell you. It's New York and Non- Jersey CIty people coming into our city, making prevailing wages, causing traffic coming in, and leaving with fat paychecks. For those who are not familiar with PLA agreements PLEASE read it. you will be appalled.
The agreements stated that a certain percent of JC residents are to be on these sites. They don't even come close to meeting these requirements. and STEVE VIOLA and the rest know this.....

This is horrible. Union LAbor won't help JC in the least bit. If it does please show us......

Huge dissappointment.

Hold on a minute! What about developers that get 20, 25, 30+ -year tax abatements?!?!? Almost sounds like the council is royally screwing the smaller developers in JC and giving huge perks to the already filthy-rich mega developers, many of whom are already getting plenty of local and state breaks to build (Ironstate, Roseland, Hartz, etc.).

Quote:

Wait, wait, I know this one...

Why would a government help unionized workers to monopolize the labor marketplace and squeeze out non-unionized workers?

Could it be (a) because unions contribute to their campaign? or (b) because unions contribute to their cmapaign? Or (c) all of the above?



Anyway, here is another thing to think about:

So, the city council decided that the developers have too many incentives to build in JC and they can totally swallow some de-motivation, and still stay here.

Now, you may belong to the "let's milk them dry" school and think that this is a brilliant idea. Or, you may belong to the "don't kill the goose that lay golden eggs" school and think this is very dumb.

Fine. However, in both cases, you must realize that there is more than one way to demotivate the developer.

We could have reduced their tax abatement for example - and use extra money to cut residents' taxes a little. Or to reduce city debt a little.

We could have required developers to build some parking space, or to create some parks and recreational areas, or to manage garbage disposal facility and so on.

There are many ways to demotivate them - by asking them to put out for the benefit of the Jersey City taxpayers.

Instead, our elected representatives chose to demotivate the developers - by forcing them to put out for the unions.

Interesting, eh?

why did Fulop vote for that abomination of a law?

A split Jersey City City Council last week voted 6-3 to require developers who receive five-year tax abatements to abide by pre-set labor agreements that require the developers to hire all union labor.
The council adopted the measure Wednesday over the objections of an attorney representing the owners of The Beacon, who have begun construction on three buildings in that luxury development, and who plan to seek a five-year abatement.
Eugene Paolino, the attorney for the developer, said there are a variety of problems with the measure, including that it contradicts a state statute already on the books.
Nonetheless, five council members voted to adopt the measure: David Donnelly, Steve Fulop, Rolando Lavarro, Nidia Lopez, Michele Massey and Viola Richardson. Three councilmen -- Peter Brennan, Bill Gaughan and Michael Sottolano -- rejected the measure, (I wonder why) saying they fear lawsuits if it's enacted (yeah right) Read more...