Browsing this Thread:
2 Anonymous Users
|
Re: Developer Pay-to-Play Press Release- Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Quote:
STEVE FULOP! (okay, what do i win?)
Posted on: 2007/1/25 2:37
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We Will Remember! Pay to play voted down
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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
 |
Peasants get just a little? shit our neighborhood hasn't seen any. I'd like to know where these peasants are because we here, around Communipaw Ave would like to meet these peasants that are worse off?
A transcript of the meeting should be given to every media outlet in the country.
Posted on: 2007/1/25 2:28
|
|||
|
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: We Will Remember! Pay to play voted down
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I can't help but think this outcome wasn't entirely unforeseen by Councilman Fulop. And that the objective wasn't as much to pass the proposed ordinance, but to martyr himself and deposit the PR from this into the campaign bank. He's smart enough to know that introducing the ordinance as confrontationally and combatively as he did was going to doom its chances of passing among his fellow councilpersons.
So, in the end, he gets to be the hero/martyr for going out on a "limb" and raising the people's cause which he knew wouldn't pass, (and getting plenty of PR for it), yet he still gets to accept campaign contributions from developers for his future political battles. He'll be putting his money where his mouth is if he refuses to accept political campaign contributions from developers on principle, despite the failure of this ordinance. Then i'll give him some credit. Well played, Councilman. Well played. You'll fit in here juuuuust fine.
Posted on: 2007/1/25 2:27
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer Pay-to-Play Press Release- Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
 
|
"and one abstinence (Vega)"
guess who's running for mayor
Posted on: 2007/1/25 2:21
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We Will Remember! Pay to play voted down
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
What a pathetic group of elected puppets.
At least they had to do the dirty work in front of a crowd. How about this for an excuse,it went like this. Council crook "i just get so many requests for money from the peasants of this city so i take the money from the developers so i can give a little to the peasants" An out and out F__cking Disgrace.
Posted on: 2007/1/25 2:19
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We Will Remember! Pay to play voted down
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
To get change, someone needs to bring attention to the public just how important this issue is. It is apparent just by some comments on this board that not everyone knows exactly what this ordinance would mean.
Then, when the next election comes up we bring up this issue again and slam the incumbent.
Posted on: 2007/1/25 1:36
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We Will Remember! Pay to play voted down
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
 
|
The Jersey City Council Circus were a bunch of pagliacis at their best this evening.
Brennan was a sight to behold when he cast a cheap shot against Fulop. If the man can't act appropriately when he's sitting on the council bench with citizens watching, then how does he expect people to believe he will act ethically when no one is looking and there's money on the table. Quote: Like: "I get all these requests for money from the community...this is how I am able to give money to these requests...from the developers." Not make any sense to you? Me either. I thought money going to campaigns needed to be for campaigns. Sense? Sounds like a desperate attempt to to hang on to the money. The old...If I don't get it, then neither will you excuse. Why don't the developers give directly to the community some which have filed lawsuit or intimidation against organizations. I thought the same, that all this money was needed for the campaign. Bought and paid for.
Posted on: 2007/1/25 1:35
Edited by DeltaFox on 2007/1/25 1:51:03
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We Will Remember! Pay to play voted down
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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:
What a disgrace! Hudson County is known the world over for the corrupt state of politics - a long line of indictments and convictions stand as testament to the sorry state of affairs. But, what is truly shocking is that the council knew that a vote was coming (and that the public would be watching), and yet it is like they didn?t even prepare to come up with a suitable line of BS. Its not the fact that it got voted down, it was HOW it got voted down. I suppose I was hoping for a close vote ? it wasn?t close. Shame on the city council. -M
Posted on: 2007/1/25 1:17
Edited by Mouse on 2007/1/25 1:58:59
|
|||
|
I cook with wine, sometimes I even add it to the food.
W. C. Fields |
||||
|
||||
|
Re: We Will Remember! Pay to play voted down
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Well duh, of course it's going to be voted down by the very people who are the receiving the contributions. This, or something similar, was put to public referendum in Hoboken a few years ago and passed. Can this be a referendum question in the next JC election?
Article
Posted on: 2007/1/25 0:51
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We Will Remember! Pay to play voted down
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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
|
shit happens - the idea was good, but it sounds to me it was a 'corporate' decision not a governance one.
Posted on: 2007/1/25 0:26
|
|||
|
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: We Will Remember! Pay to play voted down
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Not surprising, did they even team up and have one or two vote yay to make it look good?
Posted on: 2007/1/25 0:18
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: We Will Remember! Pay to play voted down
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Shocker.
Posted on: 2007/1/25 0:17
|
|||
|
||||
|
We Will Remember! Pay to play voted down
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
|
Fulop's Pay to play first reading was voted down tonight. The vote was laughable...in fact many in the very large audience lauged quite a bit as councilman after councilman scraped the barrel to come up with excuses to vote nay. Even after Steve tried to explain away any possible excuses...they came up with new ones. Like: "I get all these requests for money from the community...this is how I am able to give money to these requests...from the developers." Not make any sense to you? Me either. I thought money going to campaigns needed to be for campaigns.
Thanks for trying Steve. I hope your packing heat while your up there in that council. That's what one should do when surrounded by criminals.
Posted on: 2007/1/25 0:15
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer Pay-to-Play Press Release- Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2004/9/12 7:13 Last Login : 2012/5/16 16:22 From beneath the jumping sheep
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
442
|
I am sad to report that the campaign reform ordinance was defeated. Two votes for (Fulop, Richardson), six against, and one abstinence (Vega). Expect to see the video from Falcon shortly.
Posted on: 2007/1/25 0:15
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer Pay-to-Play Press Release- Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Great questions, Althea. I share your hesitation to completely back this ordinance gangbusters style.
For the record, the fact that no other actions have been filed challenging the constitutionality of the ordinance does not mean that no colorable claim against it exists. I can see a hum-dinger of an Equal Protection argument, i.e. why developers are singled out to not participate in the process by funding the campaigns of politicians they feel will serve their interests, as is my right and your right to do. Why not a prohibition against all businesses with whom the city deals? It's a slippery slope argument, but it's a legitimate one.
Posted on: 2007/1/24 23:42
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer Pay-to-Play Press Release- Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
My main worry with this ordinance was if there are any civil liberties issues here. Were people's individual rights being trampled on? I couldn't be in good conscience pro this ordinance if it violates the rights of some to participate in politics as some here have suggested.
I just got off the phone with Common Cause, http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1187499 who I was referred to by the NJ affiliate of the ACLU. The ACLU does not claim any civil rights violations and has not taken up any cases around this issue. Common Cause sees no legal challenges based on the rights of developers to participate in politics. This being said, if you were concerned with this issue as well, I know how I would vote if I had a vote. Althea
Posted on: 2007/1/24 21:02
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer Pay-to-Play Press Release- Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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
|
There has been plenty of time for the council to discuss and research this issue. At least 7 months.
On behalf of Civic JC, I presented a similiar model ordinance to the City Council on June 14, 2006. Two other Civic JC officers along with myself introduced, discussed and offered to meet with any and all council members in an effort to move this initiative forward. Only Councilman Fulop and Councilwoman Richardson spoke to us after the meeting. We followed up and spoke at the June 28th meeting offering again to meet with and do whatever we could to help the council advance it. I wrote each councilmember with a copy of the proposed model ordinance mid-October 2006 asking for their comments and position, requesting response by December 1, 2006. No response was received. The ordinance has not faced a legal challenge to date in other towns that have passed it. Citizen's Campaign is not aware of any pending challenges. Quote:
Posted on: 2007/1/24 17:37
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer Pay-to-Play Press Release- Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I'm still conflicted and unclear about this issue and will be there tonight to hear the arguments.
However, Lipski is my councilman, Ward C, so my eyes are on him and how he represents my neighborhood and community as a whole. On thing he has brought up is the need to have talked about this issue with other agencies and with fellow council. Was this not done? Is this true, partly true? Was there no consensus building? Another is the issue of assuming we have a negative impression of politicians in JC and developers and politicians and developers... etc... that introducing an ordinance that wants to make things more transparent is bad because it only draws more attention to the bad impression that we already have? This logic fails me... Should we pretend the problem or impression doesn't exist? State that it is false and move on? What? The last issue that I have is the idea that this ordinance should not be passed because it might bring on a lawsuit that will waste tax payer?s money. Did Lipski speak out against the anti-gun ordinances passed and then was over-turned by the NJ Superior court? These were completely ineffectual, feel good ordinances that Healy championed, but ended up, ?costing the taxpayers a significant amount of city funds in a losing effort.? What is the ?Zoning Checklist?? I have been unable to contact the NJ ACLU for their take on the issue, but am wondering, what are these rights violations that people are talking about? Are they civil liberties issues, such as the right to participate in government? etc.? Sincerely, Althea
Posted on: 2007/1/24 17:15
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer Pay-to-Play Press Release- Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
 
Joined:
2005/8/16 2:53 Last Login : 2007/1/29 17:28 From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
60
|
Call the City Clerk's office at (201) 547-5150 TODAY -- Tuesday 1.23.07, to make a comment during the open comment portion of the council meeting.
Let the city council know why you took time out of your day to attend the meeting.
Posted on: 2007/1/23 14:58
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer Pay-to-Play Press Release- Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/5/11 3:17 Last Login : 2018/4/25 16:16 From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
370
|
Seems to me, that if a lot of concerned citizens show up and are visibly supportive of the pay to play reform, a lot of the people who are elected by us to represent our wishes may just change their tune and vote for this ordinance.
Let's all show up and show our support- pack the room tomorrow at 6pm!
Posted on: 2007/1/23 14:32
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer Pay-to-Play Press Release- Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Dan thanks for posting.
Just as a point, both arguments are very weak and both were addressed yesterday. I will certainly go over them again tomorrow for those of you who can attend the council meeting This ordinance will be heard between 6 and 6:30.
Posted on: 2007/1/23 14:16
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer Pay-to-Play Press Release- Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Looks like the two main arguments apposing here are:
a) Since JC gave control to the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency there could be a lawsuit against the city if the ordinance passes. This seems a little ridiculous to me however it would have been nice if they had exact stats on which cities have a similar agency with the pay-to-play ordinance and do real risk analysis regarding a potential lawsuit. b) Since Fulop doesn't receive as much political contribution from developers as the other council members they think it is unfair to them to enact this specific law which would give Fulop a unfair advantage regarding raising funds.
Posted on: 2007/1/23 13:59
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer Pay-to-Play Press Release- Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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
|
If you have something the hide, then you will not want this ordinance passed.
The ordinance should make no difference to politicians if they are 'above board'. Seems like another 'politicial attack' on the messenger and not really the message.
Posted on: 2007/1/23 12:32
|
|||
|
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: Developer Pay-to-Play Press Release- Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Moderator
 
Joined:
2004/1/6 7:40 Last Login : 2021/9/18 2:12 From Beautiful Downtown Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
204
|
I filmed this at the Council Caucus meeting on Jan 22, 2007; it is in two parts due to the 10 minute limitation of youtube.
It seems that the Pay to Play Reform ordinance will have a tough time getting passed at the first reading on Wed Jan 24 because everyone on the council expressed opposition to this ordiance except for Councilman Steve Fulop who introduced it.
PART 1:
PART 2:
Posted on: 2007/1/23 7:24
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer Pay-to-Play Press Release- Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I'd like to thank my good pal Sonia for posting this Letter-to-the-Editor over at the NWA...
Fulop's rush to grandstand Monday, January 22, 2007 Letters to the Editor The Jersey Journal The term pay-to-play has become a beckoning call for those who wish to see more openness and reform in the ways in which our government does business. It, also, has been a tool for self-serving politicians wishing to grandstand for the purpose of advancing their own personal agenda. Councilman Steve Fulop's demand that Jersey City pass legislation to stop "pay-to-play" actions by developers doing business with Jersey City Redevelopment Agency could be perceived as being self-serving rather than for the benefit of the people of Jersey City. Let me explain. Councilman Fulop's rationale for sponsoring such legislation is that "Hudson County has been plagued by a negative stigma, so we're going to correct the perception" and that "the goal of the ordinance is to eliminate the perception that the road to 'designation' is paved by campaign contributions." Oddly enough, Councilman Fulop never called upon his council colleagues to study and meaningfully discuss the potential need for "pay-to-play" legislation, but single-handedly sought to make his desire for such legislation through headlines. Worse yet, Councilman Fulop never even consulted with the executive director of the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency to confirm his fears or perceptions. To raise this matter to the extent Councilman Fulop has without himself having fully researched it is not only irresponsible but also unscrupulous in that it fosters those same negative perceptions he is trying to rid about our city. Councilman Fulop recently had another of his sponsored ordinances concerning a Zoning Checklist overturned by this state's Superior Court, costing the taxpayers a significant amount of city funds in a losing effort. Rather than commit to the same mistakes of impetuous lawmaking, let's take our time to make good laws, not good headlines. COUNCILMAN STEVE LIPSKI JERSEY CITY
Posted on: 2007/1/23 4:17
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer Pay-to-Play Press Release- Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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
|
Actually, the proposed ordinance bans the contribution from a year prior to being A) designated developer or the RFQ which ever is longer for an existing redevelopment plan or B) designated developer or the authorization of the study to determine if an area is in need of redevelopment (blight study), whichever is shorter through the completion of the redevelopment project. A long time for a promise to be kept. The Liberty Harbor North redevelopment project has been going 20+ years and counting
I believe that the ordinance goes much further than just the appearance of impropriety, it makes a current practice illegal. Yes, in my mind a conflict of interest currently exists and council members should recuse them from redevelopment related votes that involve their campaign donors, but since our elected officials have not or do not appear to see it the same way, banning this conflict of interest needs to be codified into law. Also, the Mayor signs off on some of these ordinances, changes and agreements, how does he recuse himself. I recall that Councilman Fulop, prior to running for the council office, raised the recusal issue when speaking before the council a couple of years ago against tax abatement agreements. The response was, which is the same response we hear today, is that the contibutions do not unduly influence council members and the Mayor's decisions and that their decisions are soley based on the public interest. Enough said, I support the ordinance and hope others will. Quote:
Posted on: 2007/1/22 19:28
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer Pay-to-Play Press Release- Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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
|
I understand and agree with your point.
Yes, Civic JC and I support this ordinance. This is disclosed in Councilman Fulop's press release which started this discussion thread, though not in the follow up posting. I could have better stated that "I and/or Civic JC believe that it is not relevant to the merits of the proposed ordinance whether Councilman Fulop or any other council members have accepted campaign contributions from developers." While we did not draft the ordinance for Councilman Fulop, it is similiar to one which we proposed in June 2006 and both are based on the model ordinance from Citizen's Campaign. Lastly, no intent to hide my/our support of this ordinance. Quote:
Posted on: 2007/1/22 18:52
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer Pay-to-Play Press Release- Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
This may be a stupid question, but doesn't this ordinance simply change the timing of donations from developers to politicians? Instead of "pay to play" it will be "play and pay". If I'm a developer, and I think I can influence a politician with donations, won't I just make a "promise" to support that politician in the next election if I win business. Then, when my work crew is already busy with a multi-year city project (which I suspect most of the city projects are), I can fulfill my promise. All I have to do is make my last donation more than a year before my current work with the city is done.
If this ordinance is supposed to address "the appearance of impropriety", why doesn't it simply require a councilperson to recuse themselves if they have accepted donations from a developer bidding on a project? This holds the politicians accountable, and doesn't infringe on the rights of people to donate to petition their government.
Posted on: 2007/1/22 17:33
|
|||
|
I'd go over 12 percent for that
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer Pay-to-Play Press Release- Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
How do you like them bananas!! 
Posted on: 2007/1/22 17:25
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer Pay-to-Play Press Release- Steven Fulop
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I whole-heartedly agree, NNJR (happy day!). Given that this ordinance seeks to address "appearance of impropriety" issues in municipal/developer relationships, I think the motives behind Fulop's introduction of this ordinance and his campaign finance history should be highly scrutinized. I'll determine what is relevant to whether i support this ordinance, thank you very much. I find your language insulting, DanL, as your post could be easily misread as purporting to be unbiased, when in fact you're clearly pushing for the passage of this ordinance (you drafted it, after all). Being on the side of an ordinance you drafted isn't a problem in itself, but holding yourself out to seem unbiased when you clearly aren't is disingenuous.
Posted on: 2007/1/22 16:39
|
|||
|
||||