r_pinkowitz wrote:
On Jan, 23 2008 Councilman Fulop voted in favor of introducing ordinance #08-11 a 20 year tax abatement for a market rate residential condominium project to be constructed by the Warren and York Urban Renewal Corporation LLC, in the Paulus Hook section of Jersey City.
Jan 23rd Council Agenda.

I don't quite understand how a person who is 100% against tax abatements, votes in favor of introducing one in downtown on Warren and York?

Where does Councilman Fulop live? I always forget.

r_pinkowitz wrote:
On Jan, 23 2008 Councilman Fulop voted in favor of introducing ordinance #08-11 a 20 year tax abatement for a market rate residential condominium project to be constructed by the Warren and York Urban Renewal Corporation LLC, in the Paulus Hook section of Jersey City.
Jan 23rd Council Agenda.

I don't quite understand how a person who is 100% against tax abatements, votes in favor of introducing one in downtown on Warren and York?

StevenFulop wrote:
Salonthehill,

I didn?t even see this thread but happy to respond. Let me start with the ulterior motives post as there was nothing that I stood to gain personally from this vote and I think that is evident by all public disclosure that I file.

If you look at my voting record as it relates to abatements, in fairness it is not really accurate to say that I have opposed all abatements 100% of the time. Robin Pinky posted that for political reasons but it is not based in fact at all. I have always said that abatements have a place and are a useful tool when used in a fair way for resident?s benefits however the policy of abating everything and then renegotiating them lower is detrimental. My voting record shows this.

For certain, I have the most conservative voting record on the council with regards to abatements, however, I have voted for some based on each abatement?s individual circumstances. I try to look at each abatement based on different factors including location of the project, economic conditions of that particular abatement to the city, length of the abatement, and the city?s situation at the time. The most troubling aspect of this particular abatement was the location but as I will explain below other factors were part of the decision.

This particular abatement referenced here was a rare one from a financial point that we don?t see anymore at 16% which contributes significantly more than what we see today (we likely won?t see any like this again). The majority of the abatements now are coming in at 10% and the council is actually readjusting some already agreed upon abatements to this lower number. The city has seen a slow down as you can imagine in applications and starts (50 Columbus, 2nd Trump Towers, etc..) per the budget projections, however this is one project that will get started in the near term at a rate that was a higher than any other- hus I thought it made sense.

You may disagree, and I did recognize at the time that people may spin it as Robin did for political reasons, however my record has been consistent in trying to advocate best I can for the people I represent to fair terms with regards to services or taxes. Hope that clarifies how I thought about this particular abatement.

Steve

r_pinkowitz wrote:

I love how anyone who challenges the almighty Fulop is doing it because they have a political agenda, and using my nickname the way you did just shows how childish you really are.

the council is actually readjusting some already agreed upon abatements to this lower number.

...using my nickname the way you did just shows how childish you really are

So, now we all know that you do support abatements, it just depends on the terms.

scooter wrote:

'mayors-gone-wild' Healy

StevenFulop wrote:

This particular abatement referenced here was a rare one from a financial point that we don?t see anymore at 16% which contributes significantly more than what we see today (we likely won?t see any like this again).

Steve

TM: When Cunningham defeated Tom DeGise to become mayor, he temporarily won the support of anti-abatement activists. Do you consider yourself the anti-abatement candidate in this race?

SF: I?m not against abatements per se ? but I do have objections to the way they?re currently being used. You want to use abatements to stimulate development in parts of the city where development wouldn?t ordinarily occur. But right now, they?re being used to plug budget gaps so that the City Council doesn?t have to raise taxes. The Council will give out abatements anywhere, because they?ve become addicted to the quick fiscal fix. We need to develop a long-term fiscal policy that doesn?t rely on these crutches.

This isn?t about hostility to development. I think we?ve all cultivated some ambivalence on this issue, and we now know that developers are not these big bad beasts all the time. But by and large, Ward E does not need development stimulus anymore.

r_pinkowitz wrote:
Quote:

StevenFulop wrote:
Salonthehill,

I didn?t even see this thread but happy to respond. Let me start with the ulterior motives post as there was nothing that I stood to gain personally from this vote and I think that is evident by all public disclosure that I file.

If you look at my voting record as it relates to abatements, in fairness it is not really accurate to say that I have opposed all abatements 100% of the time. Robin Pinky posted that for political reasons but it is not based in fact at all. I have always said that abatements have a place and are a useful tool when used in a fair way for resident?s benefits however the policy of abating everything and then renegotiating them lower is detrimental. My voting record shows this.

For certain, I have the most conservative voting record on the council with regards to abatements, however, I have voted for some based on each abatement?s individual circumstances. I try to look at each abatement based on different factors including location of the project, economic conditions of that particular abatement to the city, length of the abatement, and the city?s situation at the time. The most troubling aspect of this particular abatement was the location but as I will explain below other factors were part of the decision.

This particular abatement referenced here was a rare one from a financial point that we don?t see anymore at 16% which contributes significantly more than what we see today (we likely won?t see any like this again). The majority of the abatements now are coming in at 10% and the council is actually readjusting some already agreed upon abatements to this lower number. The city has seen a slow down as you can imagine in applications and starts (50 Columbus, 2nd Trump Towers, etc..) per the budget projections, however this is one project that will get started in the near term at a rate that was a higher than any other- hus I thought it made sense.

You may disagree, and I did recognize at the time that people may spin it as Robin did for political reasons, however my record has been consistent in trying to advocate best I can for the people I represent to fair terms with regards to services or taxes. Hope that clarifies how I thought about this particular abatement.

Steve

I love how anyone who challenges the almighty Fulop is doing it because they have a political agenda, and using my nickname the way you did just shows how childish you really are.

Here is the bottom line Councilman Fulop, I posted it for one reason and one reason only, you voted in favor of abatement for Market Rate Luxury Condominiums in the Paulus Hook section of Jersey City. What ever the terms are it?s still a tax abatement and coming from someone who has repeatedly and adamantly denounced abatements this came as a shock. So, now we all know that you do support abatements, it just depends on the terms.

Are you for or against Abatements?

alb wrote:
My understanding (which could be wrong; I've been trying to piece this together and haven't found a great description that incorporates numbers) is that maybe we have about a $2 billion in tax-abated property on the waterfront. If that's a correct figure, and the owners would normally be paying about 2 percent of that value in property taxes, then the abatements might be costing us about $40 million in tax revenue.

If that estimate is correct (again: I welcome corrections), it might be that eliminating the abatements would be the right thing to do, and it might help us cope with cuts in state support, but it might not flood our schools with extra cash.

scooter wrote:
Quote:

Are you for or against Abatements?

...or a third option, do you examine each abatement individually, taking things as location, interest rate, and term length into account? (as Fulop seems to be doing)


This blanket for/against thing seems a little silly/simplistic.
I'm sorry. Please don't delete my post.


A better blanket question might be: ""Do you favor ever renegotiating existing signed agreements after the fact to benefit developers (i.e. lowering interest rates, providing low interest loans, scuttling redevelopment plans)?"

JCase wrote:

Whatever the numbers are, this is not the point. .. The best reason to stop abatements is that they are pure giveaways in an area undergoing enormous organic growth due to its ideal location vis a vis NYC.

SalOnTheHill wrote:
Well, here's Fulop's position on granting abatements, (at least when he was running for office), lest we try to keep changing the subject:

SF: "I?m not against abatements per se ? but I do have objections to the way they?re currently being used. You want to use abatements to stimulate development in parts of the city where development wouldn?t ordinarily occur. But right now, they?re being used to plug budget gaps so that the City Council doesn?t have to raise taxes. The Council will give out abatements anywhere, because they?ve become addicted to the quick fiscal fix. We need to develop a long-term fiscal policy that doesn?t rely on these crutches.

"This isn?t about hostility to development. I think we?ve all cultivated some ambivalence on this issue, and we now know that developers are not these big bad beasts all the time. But by and large, Ward E does not need development stimulus anymore."

And if Ward E by and large does not need development stimulus anymore, Paulus Hook most certainly does not need development stimulus.

super_furry wrote:
Quote:

SalOnTheHill wrote:
Well, here's Fulop's position on granting abatements, (at least when he was running for office), lest we try to keep changing the subject:

SF: "I?m not against abatements per se ? but I do have objections to the way they?re currently being used. You want to use abatements to stimulate development in parts of the city where development wouldn?t ordinarily occur. But right now, they?re being used to plug budget gaps so that the City Council doesn?t have to raise taxes. The Council will give out abatements anywhere, because they?ve become addicted to the quick fiscal fix. We need to develop a long-term fiscal policy that doesn?t rely on these crutches.

"This isn?t about hostility to development. I think we?ve all cultivated some ambivalence on this issue, and we now know that developers are not these big bad beasts all the time. But by and large, Ward E does not need development stimulus anymore."

And if Ward E by and large does not need development stimulus anymore, Paulus Hook most certainly does not need development stimulus.

Abatements are good or bad, depending on how they they are implemented. A major issue that many of us have with abatements is that the city has left too much on the table when offering abatement to developers. I don't think that Fulop has ever said that he would unconditionally vote against all abatements in ward E.

Sal, what ward do you live in and what is your council person's voting record on abatements? Can we assume that unlike Fulop, your council person has voted for nearly every abatement that was offered? Do you have an ulterior motive for suggesting inconsistencies in Fulop's voting record?

SalOnTheHill wrote:
It's my understanding that the Beacon is actually within Ward E (i was told it extended up to Baldwin Avenue), but considering Fulop is going to be asking for the entire city to vote for him for mayor, I don't know what relevance the question of "who's your councilperson and what's their voting record" has to the question of Fulop's vote for an abatement for a luxury condo project in Paulus Hook. Except maybe to suggest that "others" dare not question Fulop, which smacks of ulterior motives.

Why is it so hard for the councilman (and his devotees) to hold him to account for not living up to his campaign commitments? I thought he was all about accountability and transparency, so why the need to change the subject?

brewster wrote:
Quote:

SalOnTheHill wrote:
It's my understanding that the Beacon is actually within Ward E (i was told it extended up to Baldwin Avenue), but considering Fulop is going to be asking for the entire city to vote for him for mayor, I don't know what relevance the question of "who's your councilperson and what's their voting record" has to the question of Fulop's vote for an abatement for a luxury condo project in Paulus Hook. Except maybe to suggest that "others" dare not question Fulop, which smacks of ulterior motives.

Why is it so hard for the councilman (and his devotees) to hold him to account for not living up to his campaign commitments? I thought he was all about accountability and transparency, so why the need to change the subject?

100 years ago Einstein proved we live in a relativistic world. A politician needs to be evaluated relative to the competition rather than perfection. Absolutists don't survive long in any political system. Yours is also the attitude that gets us leaders with thin resumes, rather than experience and long histories, which inevitably contain compromises that leave them vulnerable to your sort of absolutist criticism.

Every election in my lifetime hasn't been about who's perfect, but who's less bad. Fulop has nearly continuously challenged the entrenched corrupt system. Who do you have that's less bad and electable, that considering a mayoral run?

I think Lou Manzo has run and lost enough times to not be a viable candidate.

SalOnTheHill wrote:
It's my understanding that the Beacon is actually within Ward E (i was told it extended up to Baldwin Avenue)...

super_furry wrote:
Fulop voted against the abatement for the Beacon, where you claim to reside. This shouldn't come as a surprise since Fulop has consistently rejected abatements that are not needed.