Ralph_Abutts wrote:
FWIW: the Jersey City Board of Education limits public speakers to 5 minutes.

HeightsNative wrote:
Having been to enough council meetings, I can say Yvonne is ruining it for everyone else. I applaud her tenacity and involvement, but that's it. There's never any structure to her arguments, and at times rambles on ad infinitem to the point that we forget what the topic is. It's things like this that turn average people off.

Let me be clear; I am 100% against limiting public comment. But, when it gets out of hand, and clearly serves to inflate anyone's personal ego, I'd say cut them off.

But capping everyone to 5 minutes is harsh, particularly if there's a complex topic and the speaker is actually engaging the council in dialogue. Maybe have it flexible where they can extend upon request? Knowing Lavarro, he'll deny every single one. Maybe make extensions like motions, where you 1 need council member to quickly motion to extend the speaker's time with someone seconding it? Just spitballing here.

Yvonne wrote:
Out of 16 second reading ordinances, I speak on two or three which relates on public spending. After all, it is our tax dollars. Why don't you watch youtube and you can see what I speak on? As they say the proof is in the pudding.

Yvonne wrote:
Yes, you are gullible, the same administration that wants to limit time on ordinances also want to remove those free press boxes. Granted there are too many at some locations and should be spaced apart but I and many others do read those articles. This administration is attacking the first amendment, plain and simple.

Yvonne wrote:
Making personal attacks on reducing public hearings is sad, Resident, it show you have nothing important to say except garbage. If a block is under a redevelopment zone which might have hundreds of pages, then too bad. You cannot ask important questions and get responses if you are limited. Amazingly, developers who go to caucus meeting are not asked to limit their time. While caucus meetings are set for 2 hours, they can last five or more hours due to many developers peddling their plans. Yet developers are not asked to limit their time to 5 minutes and the council do not mind adding additional time to caucus meetings for them.

Yvonne wrote:
A little background the Exchange SID is composed of developers, they want the land for a hotel and a turn around for the hotel for drop offs. But as I said before, there is no paper work or drawings for the public to see. You are just gullible to believe everything that the Fulop team says. At 3 different caucus meetings Councilman Yun asked for paper work, he never received it before the meeting. Check the caucus meeting videos, his words are there.

Yvonne wrote:
It was a land grab plain and simple, first Fulop insulted the Polish people when he went on the radio, and said the Polish government help Nazi Germany. You can google those comments. It doesn't matter Poland was invade in 1939 by Nazi Germany. People were upset, and it was not just Polish people speaking. Members of the NAACP also spoke in favor of leaving the statue. What bothered me was there was no information on the SID about this so-call Water Park they wanted to put there. This council and mayor ran on transparency, but everything is hush-hush.

Yvonne wrote:
In 2014, Lavarro said, "Council President Rolando Lavarro said he, disagreed with the limitation." Now he is pushing this, so yes, this is payback.

Yvonne wrote:
I realize that, Terrence, but this is nothing but payback for the public speaking against the administration on the removal of Katyn.

Yvonne wrote:
"Balcer said the council should reduce the number of public hearings it has at each meeting rather than limit how much time each speaker has to comment." That statement is incorrect, I said the council should limit the number of items on the agenda. In the past you would have 6 second reading ordinances, now it is 16. The council president control what ordinances are on the agenda, not the public.