Quote:

Short answer is that we had 3 mayors in a very short time...Cunningham died in office and then we had Smith for a few months as Acting Mayor and then Healy. Each mayor brought his own cronies in and so the city (and the departments) suffered from a lack of real leadership with all the musical chairs going on with the political shuffling.

At least, that's my take on it.

Food For Thought

This is a newpaper report from June 2001.

What happened?




Jersey City
On Friday, June 1, 2001, the Associated Press reported that in the year 2000 Jersey City had the largest drop in serious crime among New Jersey's largest cities - more than Newark, Paterson and Elizabeth.

According to the AP, not only is Jersey City ranked exceptionally well statewide, it is also bucking national trends. While the drops in rates have stagnated nationally, Jersey City's continued to fall at an impressive rate.

The Jersey City Police Department released statistics today for the 1st quarter of 2001, which show that Jersey City's drop in crime will continue to outperform state and national trends. According to the 2001 first quarter crime statistics, Jersey City experienced an 8% decline during the 1st quarter of the year. Assaults and burglary have both dropped 17%, larceny dropped 9% and auto-theft dropped 5%.

Truth be told he?s a nice drunk.

I wouldn?t say a drinking buddy, but I have had the pleasure a few times.

Quote:

Oh, wow, thanks. I had no idea he was an American.

I was talking about his ethnicity, not his nationality.

So you're one of his drinking buddies? That's pretty funny. Is he an "angry drunk"?

Healy does have a well documented history of alcohol misuse -- in the past. I haven't seen anything recently. Since he is a diabetic he should not be drinking at all. If he is still consuming alcohol, that demonstrates poor judgment.

I believe that Healy has the best interest for Jersey City at heart, but he is in over his head, bordering on incompetency. Taking accountability for failures of his administration should be the first step. Hiring qualified staff is a second step. A pattern of appointing ?close friends? to head autonomous agencies and to senior staff positions is troubling, but in Hudson County, not unusual.

First off he is not Irish, he is an American. I was born in Eire, so I know the difference here.

Secondly, I have personal experience of drinking with the man.

Thirdly, there are plenty of news stories about his drinking. Try Google.

Quote:

Do you know this for a fact? If so please share with us. Or is it just because he's Irish that you assume he's an alcoholic?

If you are going to make such an accusation, provide evidence to back it up. Since he is a diabetic, he shouldn?t be drinking at all. That is one of the reasons why I didn?t vote for him.

Quote:

I voted for Healy, hence the utter disappointment. He is an elected official who has failed and therefore he is open to attack. He does spend too much of his time drinking and unlike say Winston Churchill, Mr. Healy is not even a functioning alcoholic.

We need a mayor with vision: Someone who can get some money out of the waterfront. Someone who can control crime (time for zero tolerance?), someone who can structure the school system and someone who has innovative ideas about how to get money flowing into Jersey City ? God knows the potential is obvious.

I am by nature a democrat and believe that in terms of national and international politics a Democrat President is far more successful. However, on the local government level a Republican candidate seems better a fighting through all the complacency, corruption and entrenched and un-productive thinking. JC needs to be totally restructured as the present model is a complete mess. On the local government level we need someone like Rudolph W. Giuliani. I?m not Rudy?s biggest fan, but he got stuff done and we really need someone who can get stuff done at this crucial point in time of JC?s development.

The short answer is YES. He has been a useless tool since he took office!

Quote:

You'll get no arguement from me here. I never said nor indicated that he's better than his predecessors. I'll go as far as to say that he's no better and no worse than his predecessors.

"Btw ?Roaring20s?: Oh, please. I can assure you that I am nobodies lacky and trying to banish my honest opinion to some other place indicates that you are childish, undemocratic and don?t believe in the freedom of speech. It makes you sound quite pathetic really. Personal attacks just make you sound sad."

Hmmm...touche' CleanGov. You might want to re-read your posts and pick out the personal attacks that you've slung against Healy. If I'm wrong about you being someone's lacky I apologise but you DO in fact sound like one very particular lacky of a very particular former mayoral candidate.

Nobody plans an 18% tax hike, it is something that happens when those in charge are incompetent.

Saying that Healy is better than his predecessors is really no defense at all. He may well have inherited the problems, but surely he knew what the problems were before he decided to run for office and therefore he should have had some solution to solve them? The fact is Healy has no vision and has done nothing to raise money from other areas. He has no imagination or proactive policies. He has simply reacted (badly) to the political situation that is around him ? that he has "unfortunately" found himself in ? rather than come up with any innovative ways of raising money. There are plenty of innovative ways to raise much needed cash for JC and the waterfront is merely one way.

Btw ?Roaring20s?: Oh, please. I can assure you that I am nobodies lacky and trying to banish my honest opinion to some other place indicates that you are childish, undemocratic and don?t believe in the freedom of speech. It makes you sound quite pathetic really. Personal attacks just make you sound sad.

Let me make a suggestion here. The chances of winning the "tax abatement" argument is slim to none as long as you continue to spout untruths. It is a fundamental mistake to suggest that PILOTs (which are not the same as tax abatements by the way) are the reason that the city has less revenue coming in. This is completely false.

The reason the PILOTs (Payment in Liu of Taxes) that are given to all of the new huge developers are so attractive to our politicians is that they bring more money into the city than conventional taxes do. The city keeps handing them out because they are a quick fix. They allow our mayor and our council people to keep cash coming in without making the hard choices.

As I've posted in two other places on this site, let's talk about PILOTs and abatements 101.

The "normal" property taxes we pay are divided three ways. The city gets the largest portion of the tax bill and the rest is divided up between the local school system and Hudson County. The city, however, can give people property tax breaks; and they can do this in one of two ways.

The first way is by granting a tax abatement. A tax abatement is a discount (usually 30%) given to people who make significant improvements to existing property or to small scale new construction. Abatements are a tool to encourage "the little guy" to improve their property, thus improving the overall area where that property is located. Tax abatements are generally for a term of 5 years and the moneys collected are divided amongst the three entities using the same percentages that are used for all property taxes in Jersey City.

The other way that the city can give a tax break is through a PILOT program. PILOTs are not taxes, however. They are Payments in Liu of Taxes.

PILOTs are handed out to large developers (such as Trump) within a redevelopment zone. Because they are not technically taxes, they do not have to be divided up between the city, the schools and the county. The city of Jersey City gets essentially all of the monies collected from PILOTs. So since the city is not having to "share" the money, even though the rate is substantially lower than the standard property tax rate, the city ends up with more money in the end. Let me put it another way. All of these people with PILOTs are getting a better tax rate (probably 20 to 30% less than most everyone else), but the city is getting to collect that entire amount of money which comes out to being more than what they get from the average tax payer because they don't have to share this revenue with the county or the schools.

Now in case it seems as if I'm all for PILOTs, I'm not; at least not in areas where there is no need to entice people to build. That is the intended use of PILOTs, but as we all know, that's not how they are being used by our politicians. What I've come to understand is that although the city is getting more money at the moment, we're all going to get screwed in the end because the county and the schools are going to have to raise their rates as there are too many people who are not paying into that portion of the system.

So I agree; our mayor and council people need to get some help with their addiction to PILOTs and begin to lead and make some hard choices. We cannot continue to live on borrowed money any longer. Doing so means that we are essentially living on borrowed time. It's all going to catch up to us as some point. It always does.

So please consider all of this when you are arguing that "tax abatements" are the reason for our financial woes. At the moment they are not. And when we all use these arguments, our representatives can simply brush us aside because it's obvious, at least in their rationale, that we have no idea what we are talking about and that they know what's best.

And one last thing, take a look at who votes for and against these PILOTs on a regular basis, and listen to the reasons that they vote the way that they do. Don't simply lump everyone together. It's laziness on our part to make broad statements that everyone is the same. When we do that, we are basically taking the easy way out. Doing so, in the end, is just as bad as what the people we want to throw out are doing. Really, it's essentially the same thing.

Quote:


Hmmm.....that's one way to look at it however I take another viewpoint on this. The taxes were increased because the price of everthing, including municipal government has risen over the last 20 or so years since the last tax increase.

All this tax increase should have been done years ago instead of the politicians trying to push it off for as long as they could...all hoping a future administration would have been dealing with it. I think that any of us that watched the municipal government over the years expected this to happen under the Cunningham administration...not that it would have been his fault...but it was due time and Cunningham did everything he could to push the tax increse off as long as he could. This time...Healy stood up and took accountability for all the past administrations that wouldn't do what needed to be done. It's time to pay the piper and pay the increased taxes. This topic was brought up at a Ward B candidate forum and all the candidates (except for one...who unfortunately lost...he was a realist so he had no shot at winning) danced away from the question as fast as they could.

He's not a moron or a crook and didn't mismanage the city's funds...on incompetentcy...the jury's still out. I think that he should resign but not for this...my opinion based on just how many abatements are still being given to waterfront property after he said no more waterfront abatements. Just because the Shore Club isn't right on the literal waterfront and is offset from it by a few feet does not make this "non-watefront" property. Clearly it is still waterfront property to many of us. Healy could have told Shore Club that they can build if they want to but no abatements were necessary in the waterfront area and if they wanted abatements, there's plenty of areas that they can move their project to and get an abatement...thinking JSQ or the Hackensack waterfront...some area that needs abatements given..not the Newport area.

If you want to blame Healy for the tax increase, that's your opinion but I must say that you sound like a certain lacky for a former mayoral candidate that I'll let remain nameless...how many of the readers can guess who that former candidate is and who the lacky is??? I'll bet that some of you can. (Jeopardy music playing now )

So please...CleanGov...take your diatribe back to GetNJ.com where it's considered a good deed to post such silliness. I'll also wager that if your guy had won, he'd be working his butt off trying to push this tax increase off for another administration to deal with and then, the increase would be larger than 18%.

Edited to add: You guys all better pay attention to what Mia and Yvonne have been saying for years...there's a revaluation down the road. All the pols will tell you that it's no time soon but...at some point it will happen. I'll wager that it'll be sooner than they're telling the citizens. When that reval does come, watch out!!!

Healey? Healy? Heely? Whatever.

Can he spell his own name correctly? I have seen him so drunk at times that I very much doubt that he could hold a pen let alone write his own name.

The fact of the matter is that his term in office has been a total and utter failure. The man should have the decency to resign.

He is redundant of any political vision for the future of the City.

Politically speaking he is an imbecile.

Quote:

Yet somehow he can spell his name correctly. Go figure.

I don't have a problem paying higher taxes. I agree that they need to rise. My object to Healy because despite strong demand for real estate along the waterfront he has continued to give out abatements to waterfront development depsite his campaign promises. The man seems to be a liar and an incompetent.

I agree that there is alot more money coming into JC, but that easy money is deceptive -- because it stopped the city from instituting a spending and hiring freeze on new employees and services. If the city council had done that, then they could have gotten a handle on operating costs.
But instead the city council went and started hiring hundreds of new cops and firefighters, while they continued subsidizing with tax abatements the construction of luxury waterfront towers.
Yeah, there are more affluent people who are moving downtown, but it does not increase the amount of money coming into the treasury.
They are either living tax-free in tax abated properties, or they are paying the same amount of money in property taxes that an elderly person on a fixed income pays for their house.
Even the real estate boom of the past years cannot cover the fixed costs like healthcare for government employees, or pension payments - which have gone up through the roof.
In the US, the cost of health insurance alone has gone up over 300 percent in the last decade, not to mention that people are living longer, and retired city employees collect pension for much longer than they did in the past because of increased life spans. So the City is paying alot more money per city employee than 10 years ago.
Healy, Schundler, Fulop all the same... it's just a question of do you vote for the crook from your 'hood?

Quote:

Quote:
YES

by Pisces1979 on 2006/3/29 16:03:39
The cost of everything has gone up 20 percent in the past 10 years, so has the cost of running a government.


And the amount of money coming into JC has also gone up at least 20% and probably a LOT more.

Impeach Healey and the JC council ? all of them should resign. They have failed to represent the people. They have completely mismanaged Jersey City. There is money coming into the city ? more than enough money ? Only fools would find themselves in the position that Healey and his cronies are in.

Healey is a drunken oaf and a buffoon.

If Healy resigns then who is going to be mayor?
Fulop? Lipsky?
I think that anyone else who takes the job will have to raise taxes 18 percent and/or cut services.
All politicians are sociopaths and thieves, it's genetic.
The cost of everything has gone up 20 percent in the past 10 years, so has the cost of running a government.
The 18 percent tax increase is the result of skyrocketing healtcare and pension costs of an aging city workforce, as well as 25 years of giving away tax abatements.
Not to mention you now have a bunch of new residents in the new luxury towers in Newport and Downtown who demand services, yet pay no money at all in taxes.
Of course the sensible thing to do would be to institute a spending freeze and institute a 1 Percent Income tax on those making more than 100K per year, but nobody is going to do that.
Also don't forget the state is cutting funding for schools, enviromental protection, public safety, in both Hudson County and Essex County, so Jersey City is not alone in this - at least we are not in Newark, where everything is really gonna downhill much faster than in JC.

Quote:

The Tax increase of 18% indicates that Healey has completely mismanaged the City funds. He is clearly incompetent and out of his depth and he is either a moron or a crook.

Should he do the decent thing and resign?