Browsing this Thread:
4 Anonymous Users
|
Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
 
|
Quote:
Yes, you got it. And to sum up Lipski and Brennan's "concern": it would unfairly gum up the developer's works, thus stalling all the fabulous money trickling down so adequately to the citizens of JC.
Posted on: 2007/1/25 2:24
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
Having fairly recently gotten involved with neighborhood meetings and with zoning/building issues, I have to report that Lipski shocks me. It's not what he says, it's what he doesn't. When I asked straight up why there probably isn't a developer in the entire Heights that complies with zoning and building ordinances, he doesn't respond. As in, total silent treatment.
I say this with real indignation: I just don't understand how these guys get away with what they do.
Posted on: 2007/1/25 2:23
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
NNJR - i think you're almost right - as i understand it, the developer would be barred from making donations for a minimum of one year from selection as designated developer, and throughout the entire period of the development project.
somebody tell me if i've got it right: if i am joe q. lefrak, and i want to be a designated developer, i cannot have made a contribution within 1 year of that consideration. If i am selected, i am then forbidden from making any political contributions throughout the life-span of the development project (let's say 18-36 months for an average project). Then, if i want to still be eligible for consideration for being a designated developer, i must keep my hands 'clean', i.e. i am forbidden from making a contribution within a year. rinse and repeat. do i have it right? anybody?
Posted on: 2007/1/24 23:34
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
NNJR- your post is exactly why this thread is confusing me.
Isn't it generally acknowledged and accepted that "pay to play" is inherently a bad thing? So where is this opposition coming from? Abatements and PILOTs are absolutely a separate issue in my mind, except the oblique connection/possibility you raise.
Posted on: 2007/1/24 23:27
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Two items are being mixed up here
1) Pay-to-Play. There should be no hoopla, the ordinance is to limit developers to contribute to a politician under some circumstances (not all) for a year. 2) PILOTs / abatement. This issue is not even in question tonight and doesn't have much to do with pay-to-play. abatements /= pay to play, however a developer could give money to a politician in return for a vote for an abatement. This is the way I see it, correct me if I'm wrong.
Posted on: 2007/1/24 22:53
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
 
|
And don't feed me any baloney.
Posted on: 2007/1/24 22:48
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/5/11 19:17 Last Login : 2016/2/7 17:42 From Ward E - Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
465
 |
This is one of Vixen's first posts:
"Do not fool yourself. We are all trolls hiding behind a fake name. Come on you guys. feed me!!!!" Quote:
Posted on: 2007/1/24 21:58
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
I'm not buying into the hoopla. I'm not even going.
Posted on: 2007/1/24 21:42
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Much obliged, injc.
I know it's late in the process for this but I think I need to step back and digest all the arguments for / against before I make up my mind.
Posted on: 2007/1/24 21:37
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I'll address it thusly: 1. JC is competing mostly with NYC, and in that sense is handicapped (the Jersey syndrome). Hence, incentives are necessary. 2. In case of big corporate clients (the Merrill Lynches of the world), NYC is also offering huge incentives. So the market IS deciding. I think those who think that others in the market don't offer incentives are deluded. I have no idea how PHResident knows that if JC stopped PILOTs on the waterfront the development would continue unabated (pun intended). I think it's too high a risk to take (Brooklyn and Queens are just waiting for this).
Posted on: 2007/1/24 21:35
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
Quote:
Okay so I am seeing the light. Slowing down developement of dirty jersey city. You count me out now.
Posted on: 2007/1/24 21:35
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Interesting. I find myself torn between agreeing with both of you, and neither of you.
injc, while you make a nice point about the "ideological rant", you do conveniently ignore PHResident's "gaming of the marketplace" argument. So how about addressing that?
Posted on: 2007/1/24 21:18
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
PHResident wrote: Quote:
Posted on: 2007/1/24 21:15
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2004/9/15 18:45 Last Login : 2023/5/12 21:59 From Harsuimus Cove
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
174
|
Quote:
I believe Steve has voted for some abatements. The two that come to my mind are The Beacon and The American Can Company project. I believe that both of these projects received 30 year deals (with The Beacon receiving multiple PILOTs). The difference between those Steve supported and those he voted against is wholly based on whether the area of the city where a particular project is being build needs incentives to attract developers or not. The "Gold Coast", as it is referred to by many throughout the area, no longer qualifies as an area in need of incentives. Giving handouts (in the form of PILOTs) to developers to build in areas where they would likely build anyway is simply corporate welfare at best and a system of quid quo pro in the worst case scenario. And as much as the "pro-business" class loves to rail against social welfare, I would think that they would also rail against corporate welfare (at least in theory). Aren't the market forces supposed to hash all of this out? Isn't giving incentives to business in areas where no incentives are needed in a way not letting the market dictate things? Social conservatives love to point out that the "welfare state" keeps individuals from taking responsibility for their own lives and keeps them stuck in patterns where they are always expecting a hand out. But can't the same thing be said for continually handing out money to businesses? Aren't we in a sense saying we believe in the free market system all the while we are artificially propping it up? The suggestion that ending the practice of giving PILOTs to properties along the waterfront is going to halt future development is laughable. These large developers aren't building to do Jersey City any favors. They come, and continue to come, because they see a lucrative market for their product. Most of them chose JC and make plans and then ask for the PILOTs later. They simply ask because they know that our city government just can?t say no (not only to PILOTs, but to a whole host of other things). We've reached critical mass on development on or near the waterfront. We have to stop acting as if these people will simply pick up their toys and leave if we stand up for ourselves. We've gone from encouraging development in this city to simply being doormats. And when and if we wish to stop being doormats, it's going to be up to us to put a stop to it, because those who are walking all over us aren't going to change on their own.
Posted on: 2007/1/24 20:42
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2006/11/13 18:42 Last Login : 2022/2/28 7:31 From 280 Grove Street
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
4192
|
I'd be happy to donate $50,000 to a politician, so long as I can get an assurance that I'll get a tax break, a 'bid free' piece of cheap land or a contract from council that I can price to recoup my donation!
As the saying goes - NOTHING COMES FOR FREE!
Posted on: 2007/1/24 19:48
Edited by fat-ass-bike on 2007/1/24 20:29:18
|
|||
|
My humor is for the silent blue collar majority - If my posts offend, slander or you deem inappropriate and seek deletion, contact the webmaster for jurisdiction.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2004/12/14 21:47 Last Login : 2020/8/16 20:23 From not downtown
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
308
|
Quote:
I signed his ballot petition. Andrew seems like a sincere "do gooder" type, and I applaud his efforts. Hopefully next time he will give himself more lead time to get the ballots. -M
Posted on: 2007/1/24 19:16
|
|||
|
I cook with wine, sometimes I even add it to the food.
W. C. Fields |
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2004/2/6 23:13 Last Login : 2021/7/30 1:08 From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1225
|
GrovePath-
I have wondered where your optimism that things in JC are going great comes from. I too am optimistic, but in a different way. I believe we can fix things. Andrew Hubsch, now Civic JC Vice President, made a last minute effort to get on the ballot in this past mayoral election. In an interview by Tris Mccall, he describes why he did it and how the current system places huge obstacles for a candidate outside the current political system. He also outlines how the mayoral field was cleared for Mayor Healy who in effect ran unoppossed. Now regardless of Healy's merits, one might think that in a city approaching 250,000 people, there would be some opposition. Please take some time to read the interview. THE REFORMER: ANDREW HUBSCH TAKES ON CITY HALL Quote:
Posted on: 2007/1/24 18:58
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2006/11/13 18:42 Last Login : 2022/2/28 7:31 From 280 Grove Street
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
4192
|
There appears to be a monopoly in the construction and development game and it starts with paying off politicians with donations.
Competitiveness doesn't exist they way it should, when developers and larger construction co.'s can buy a contract. Do we recall the outlandish cost for a dog run! I should add that development for JC is a good thing, but it MUST be transparent and competitive.
Posted on: 2007/1/24 18:21
|
|||
|
My humor is for the silent blue collar majority - If my posts offend, slander or you deem inappropriate and seek deletion, contact the webmaster for jurisdiction.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/5/11 19:17 Last Login : 2016/2/7 17:42 From Ward E - Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
465
|
Right. No sense if trying to promote what you believe in. Just let them have their way!
Posted on: 2007/1/24 18:20
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
What are the mechanics of politics if not agenda pushing?
Posted on: 2007/1/24 18:18
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/5/11 19:17 Last Login : 2016/2/7 17:42 From Ward E - Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
465
|
The ordinance has been vetted, and has been enacted with modifications in other towns. Read the ordinance and decide for yourself. Most city council members are trying to bury this. Nobody is trying to push this on you, but we are not going to roll over and let them win.
Quote:
Posted on: 2007/1/24 18:11
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
Quote:
There appears to be a lot of agenda pushing. I cannot stand agenda pushing. It is a real turnoff. What ever happened to putting the FACTS out there and letting the people decide for themselves if the ordinance is good/bad/or a little of both and needs more work. Sounds very premature.
Posted on: 2007/1/24 17:36
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Melissa Holloway was the main candidate. I liked many of her stances, but would have liked to have seen more debate about her qualifications.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage ... 231F936A15757C0A9639C8B63 http://www.trismccall.net/jcj_holloway.htm But my point is not how good a mayor Holloway would have made, it was how Healy played this seedy game where we lost the possibilty of a viable candidate for him to run against. The timing of this was very questionable. I don't care about the whole, "Nude on his lawn" thing... I thought the last election was pure dirty politics and outright lying to constituents. Of course we could do worse, but right now I'm not sure how much. Put viable candidates on the ballot and then let voters decide, but don't expect me to have any respect for a Mayor that works to remove his completition under false technicalities. And don't expect me to vote for a mayor who claims to be anti abatement for areas that clearly don't need them, such as waterfront developers... stated in many sources directly from the horse's mouth... and then be completely pro tax abatements for the waterfront as soon as you are elected. Sorry, that just pisses me off that he gets away with that kind of crap! Althea
Posted on: 2007/1/24 17:35
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I do think that Jersey City could have done far worse than Mayor Healy -- can you tell us more about that candidate who was kept off the ballot and what you liked about her? I really would like to know -- I am not one of the "ringers" on here pushing some agenda. My girlfriend and I moved here 3 years ago and hope the best for all of Jersey City -- longterm!
Posted on: 2007/1/24 17:18
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/5/11 19:17 Last Login : 2016/2/7 17:42 From Ward E - Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
465
|
I hate to sound like a broken record - but 280 grove st will be happening tonight. Think of it as "free" performance art that you can participate in. But it is a very serious and important issue. OK my last plug today for the city council meeting pay to play ordinance...I think.
Posted on: 2007/1/24 16:54
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
"If Healy and Fulop both run for mayor next time -- it is very possible that you will see neither Healy nor Fulop as mayor. I really hope Jersey City doesn't get a really bad mayor because of this."
Or Healy can do what he did last time, hold up his real competition in court so long on bogus charges, that they barely get their name on the ballot and no one votes for them because they had literally no time to campaign. This statement almost suggests that Healy is a good mayor. To me, you run on a platform that states no more tax abatements for the waterfront area, period, because they are no longer neccessary... and then get elected and are completely all for tax abatements for waterfront developers, well that's simply an outright lie. I don't care whether you are for or against tax abatements for certain areas, you say what you mean and mean what you say. Direct and outright lying does not a good mayor make and gee... you wonder why some of question campaign funding from developers, etc., etc. Althea
Posted on: 2007/1/24 16:47
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Who is behind this stopstevelipski.com site? I am no fan of Steve Lipski but what do I get from this site -- a link back to a 2004 Star-Ledger article? =================================== from stopstevelipski.com =================================== Read the story, he said it, "...anyone but Lou Manzo" The Star-Ledger Archive COPYRIGHT ? The Star-Ledger 2004 Lipski flier lumps together foe, ex-mayor and KKK By Maria Zingaro Conte, Journal staff writer A flier featuring a picture of mayoral candidate Louis Manzo, former Jersey City Mayor Gerald McCann and a picture of a hooded Ku Klux Klansman hit mailboxes in some Jersey City neighborhoods this week. The full-color mailing - titled "Who's really behind Lou Manzo?" - was sent out by another mayoral candidate, Ward C Councilman Steve Lipski. Lipski said the picture of the hooded Klansman was an allusion to a comment by a federal judge who in 1982 likened several Jersey City officials, including McCann - a Manzo supporter - to "hooded night-riders." The judge made the remarks when he issued a ruling to cancel the layoffs of 50 white firefighters, which he called "an obvious ploy to shift blame on the court-ordered hiring of minority firefighters." But the ad does not reference the court case and never spells out any connection between Manzo, McCann and the Klan. Lipski said he decided to run the ad to make people aware of McCann's past. "I'm basically, in that literature, telling the people of Jersey City to vote for anyone but Lou Manzo because he will be a nightmare," Lipski said. Manzo blasted the mailer as an insult to the city's minority communities. "I think it's despicable, deplorable and tasteless," Manzo said. "It's an insult to the African-American community of Jersey City. It shows a total disrespect for them." The advertisement also identifies McCann as Manzo's paid chief of staff - a title which Manzo has previously described as inaccurate. McCann is a volunteer legislative aide, Manzo said. McCann, who in 1991 was convicted for fraud and tax evasion, called Lipski a hypocrite for bringing up the 1982 case. "Lipski supported me in 1989. Subsequent to this whole thing, he supported me for mayor . . . That's just the hypocrisy of it," McCann said. "If I'm with them, they're with me. If I'm against them, they're against me. That's all this is." Maria Zingaro Conte covers Jersey City. She can be reached at mzconte@jjournal.com.
Posted on: 2007/1/24 16:37
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
 
|
Quote:
He runs a political consultancy firm. Here is more on the $17K: Steve Kush
Posted on: 2007/1/24 16:36
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
His tax abatement voting records. You need to give business to gain business. Simple as that. Always has been, always will be. His tax abatement voting record does not impress me.
Posted on: 2007/1/24 16:28
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Who is Steve Kush and what is this $17,675.30 he's talking about?
Posted on: 2007/1/24 16:25
|
|||
|
||||