bodhipooh wrote:
You don't need to submit a FOIA request to get this information. Property tax information is open to the public at large, and you can look it up yourself via the property tax portal.

thor800 wrote:
Has anyone put together a definitive list of dixon properties and their pre / post reassessments ?

I would think a FOIA would take care of that.

DanL wrote:
This poster is not an election troll, and I agree with him. This is my concern. She came to Jersey City to take on this role first, then she does what other real estate and developer professionals have done before her, many of whom have been nice neighbors, and get involved, fund and support things on behalf of their employers. But the real estate and development business already has an out sized influence on Jersey City government.

I do not believe that someone at her level, general counsel can just turn a switch and is no longer involved. She still resides in her employers property.

She is clearly a professional and capable person. I would welcome her to get involved in the non-profits that I have worked on over the years.

Quote:

o73o2 wrote:
Developers have tried to exert direct political influence on the city for a very long time. That Symes is running for council moves the dial into a completely different direction. She is a skilled real estate lawyer, she has been Dixon's in-house counsel for at least 5 years, and she has been very effective in channeling financial support from Dixon to many politically connected groups and associations in JC. She is not running for the greater common good: she is running for what is best for her and the developers.

That she has left Dixon is known. Few believe that the umbilical cords have been cut completely between Symes and Dixon. Many are aware that she continues to reside in a property that is owned by Dixon.

While working for Symes and in her capacity as their community contact, she has channelled funds from Dixon to different civic groups mainly in the downtown area (Ward E). Whether this has been by design or accident, others should opine on. Whether there were strings attached with the funding- and what types of strings - perhaps are not important, but it is difficult to imagine that a developer would give money away for the benefit of the greater common good. It is more than likely that there has been a covert quid pro quo for the longer term benefit of both Symes and Dixon.

[In the case of Dixon, we should not forget that it is not a U.S. owned entity; it is Australian, hence Dixon would have to comply not only with U.S. but also with Aussie rules when it comes to providing funding to civic groups.]

Symes with her liberal urban upper-middle class agenda is appealing to the average Ward E voter: well-educated, relatively affluent, and socially liberal. She is promising a sanitized version of social justice that appeals to the average voter in the downtown: a more enjoyable city to live in. Consequently, many will vote for her.

It is a huge mistake.

It is difficult to imagine that someone who has moved to Jersey City to work for the most aggressive developer in the city will suddenly embrace an agenda that is not benefitting developers. It borders the unimaginable that her political priorities will move away from supporting development. Her strong pro-developer dependence and connections will counter any of the liberal political promises that she is making during the campaign.

Supporting Symes is an excusable mistake. And, voting for Symes is pure and simple stupidity.

T-Bird wrote:
Quote:

rcjcinsider wrote:
It's the same as if Tommy Bertolli were to claim he represents the little home owners of JC and is against developers. Is anybody fucking home?

Bertoli - there's a name that doesn't get discussed enough...

o73o2 wrote:
Developers have tried to exert direct political influence on the city for a very long time. That Symes is running for council moves the dial into a completely different direction. She is a skilled real estate lawyer, she has been Dixon's in-house counsel for at least 5 years, and she has been very effective in channeling financial support from Dixon to many politically connected groups and associations in JC. She is not running for the greater common good: she is running for what is best for her and the developers.

That she has left Dixon is known. Few believe that the umbilical cords have been cut completely between Symes and Dixon. Many are aware that she continues to reside in a property that is owned by Dixon.

While working for Symes and in her capacity as their community contact, she has channelled funds from Dixon to different civic groups mainly in the downtown area (Ward E). Whether this has been by design or accident, others should opine on. Whether there were strings attached with the funding- and what types of strings - perhaps are not important, but it is difficult to imagine that a developer would give money away for the benefit of the greater common good. It is more than likely that there has been a covert quid pro quo for the longer term benefit of both Symes and Dixon.

[In the case of Dixon, we should not forget that it is not a U.S. owned entity; it is Australian, hence Dixon would have to comply not only with U.S. but also with Aussie rules when it comes to providing funding to civic groups.]

Symes with her liberal urban upper-middle class agenda is appealing to the average Ward E voter: well-educated, relatively affluent, and socially liberal. She is promising a sanitized version of social justice that appeals to the average voter in the downtown: a more enjoyable city to live in. Consequently, many will vote for her.

It is a huge mistake.

It is difficult to imagine that someone who has moved to Jersey City to work for the most aggressive developer in the city will suddenly embrace an agenda that is not benefitting developers. It borders the unimaginable that her political priorities will move away from supporting development. Her strong pro-developer dependence and connections will counter any of the liberal political promises that she is making during the campaign.

Supporting Symes is an excusable mistake. And, voting for Symes is pure and simple stupidity.

o73o2 wrote:
Developers have tried to exert direct political influence on the city for a very long time. That Symes is running for council moves the dial into a completely different direction. She is a skilled real estate lawyer, she has been Dixon's in-house counsel for at least 5 years, and she has been very effective in channeling financial support from Dixon to many politically connected groups and associations in JC. She is not running for the greater common good: she is running for what is best for her and the developers.

That she has left Dixon is known. Few believe that the umbilical cords have been cut completely between Symes and Dixon. Many are aware that she continues to reside in a property that is owned by Dixon.

While working for Symes and in her capacity as their community contact, she has channelled funds from Dixon to different civic groups mainly in the downtown area (Ward E). Whether this has been by design or accident, others should opine on. Whether there were strings attached with the funding- and what types of strings - perhaps are not important, but it is difficult to imagine that a developer would give money away for the benefit of the greater common good. It is more than likely that there has been a covert quid pro quo for the longer term benefit of both Symes and Dixon.

[In the case of Dixon, we should not forget that it is not a U.S. owned entity; it is Australian, hence Dixon would have to comply not only with U.S. but also with Aussie rules when it comes to providing funding to civic groups.]

Symes with her liberal urban upper-middle class agenda is appealing to the average Ward E voter: well-educated, relatively affluent, and socially liberal. She is promising a sanitized version of social justice that appeals to the average voter in the downtown: a more enjoyable city to live in. Consequently, many will vote for her.

It is a huge mistake.

It is difficult to imagine that someone who has moved to Jersey City to work for the most aggressive developer in the city will suddenly embrace an agenda that is not benefitting developers. It borders the unimaginable that her political priorities will move away from supporting development. Her strong pro-developer dependence and connections will counter any of the liberal political promises that she is making during the campaign.

Supporting Symes is an excusable mistake. And, voting for Symes is pure and simple stupidity.

rcjcinsider wrote:
It's the same as if Tommy Bertolli were to claim he represents the little home owners of JC and is against developers. Is anybody fucking home?

rcjcinsider wrote:
It's sad that some people don't see anything WRONG with an in HOUSE attorney for a DEVELOPER run for City Council and of course Mayor NEXT. Rebecca as her ROLE as In house Council for dixon (which I GET WAS her JOB) orchestrated the PAC Money, orchestrated the Tax Cheat, and put her weight behind it. Unless somehow people think a bunch of frat boys from Australia know the inner dealings JC City politics.

It's cool to do that. Dixon is certainly not alone. But don't give us a SOB story about how you fought for the little guy when you run for City Council. It's the same as if Tommy Bertolli were to claim he represents the little home owners of JC and is against developers. Is anybody fucking home?