Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
45 user(s) are online (31 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 45

more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users




(1) 2 »


Re: 5-minute time limit did not pass, again
#60
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2009/7/24 20:34
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 349
Offline
TLDR.

Posted on: 7/18 20:02
Print Top


5-minute time limit did not pass, again
#59
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4646
Offline
The 5-minute limit on ordinances was defeated again. Voting no was Boggiano, Yun, Rivera, and Robinson. Voting yes is Ridley, Prinz-Arez, Solomon, and Rolando. Watterman abstained because she said you cannot use 5 minutes on the budget. When I checked the time of the council meetings from January to April the average meeting was 3 hours, the shortage was 45 minutes and the longest was 4 hours. May and June were exceptionally long because the Polish community from New York and all over New Jersey came to complain about the removal of the statue. Here is the irony, the caucus meetings where the public does not speak is actually longer than most council meetings. Monday caucus meeting was scheduled to start at 10:00 am but actually went to 3:30 PM. That is a 5 and one half hours time frame.

Posted on: 7/18 19:54
Print Top


Re: Plan to limit public comment at Jersey City council meetings draws Fulop's ire
#58
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4646
Offline
Here is the main issue, city government has the right to tax you beyond your ability to pay your taxes now they want to limit your comments on how they spend your tax dollars. Many times there are missing information attached to ordinances. Out of the 16 second readings ordinances that might appear, two or three might be on financial matters. This council do not know the information that they should, Michael Yun, being the exception because he reads everything. Yet they have no problem giving everything away to developers while, we the public, pick up the tab.

Posted on: 7/1 15:04
Print Top


Re: Plan to limit public comment at Jersey City council meetings draws Fulop's ire
#57
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/2/6 18:13
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1196
Offline
this summed up the value of not limiting 2nd reading comments and I hope you will express this again to our council members. I have already, but par for the course only received one acknowledgement out of 9.

Quote:

OneSkirt wrote:
While some people may over use this right, we need to keep it as is. I've spoken recently re: the McGinley sq. Redevelopment Plan which went on for almost 3 hrs. It was extremely productive for the residents to have this time (and we were organized) as we got to ask the City Planners and developers a lot of questions before the council. In doing this, we exposed a lot of problems with the plan and a lot of lies and contradictions the developer had been telling during that meeting, and before. President Lavarro did a great job keeping speakers on topic. If we didn't have this open time limit to hash out details and make our case, the residents wouldn't have gotten any wins out of this deal. We won a few solid points, most notably abolishing the four large video screens the developer wanted to go on the building and secure money from them towards building the new park at the square.

Posted on: 7/1 14:53
Print Top


Re: Plan to limit public comment at Jersey City council meetings draws Fulop's ire
#56
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4646
Offline
It is obvious Heights Brat that you have never attended a council meeting because I do stick to the topic. The meetings are online so you can see for yourself.

Posted on: 2014/8/23 10:07
Print Top


Re: Plan to limit public comment at Jersey City council meetings draws Fulop's ire
#55
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/12/11 19:13
From Right here!
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 756
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Joshua, you must stick to the topic of the ordinance so no theme music but once a young man during the "request for public speaking," did a rap on JC giving away the city for abatements.



Why don't YOU stick to the topic Yvonne that brought about the reason why there should be limits. During the Public Speaking portion YOU can speak to any topic YOU like for as long as YOU like. That is the issue at hand so don't YOU try to change the subject and twist it around. The reason I no longer attend council meetings is because YOU and a handful of others just go on and on and on without any thought that someone, with something to say and who has a life doesn't get a chance to get up and say their piece. That is what has YOU and a few others in a knot - that none of YOU can get up for any length of time YOU want and spew forth YOUR negativity and in some instances drivel.

And didn't Dan Siccardi bring his guitar and sing his issue a few years back?

Posted on: 2014/8/22 7:24
Print Top


Re: Plan to limit public comment at Jersey City council meetings draws Fulop's ire
#54
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4646
Offline
Joshua, you must stick to the topic of the ordinance so no theme music but once a young man during the "request for public speaking," did a rap on JC giving away the city for abatements.

Posted on: 2014/8/21 17:18
Print Top


Re: Plan to limit public comment at Jersey City council meetings draws Fulop's ire
#53
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/6/7 23:24
From New Urbanist Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1334
Offline
Cool. I wish I could have theme music like that when I get up to speak.

Posted on: 2014/8/21 17:05
Print Top


Re: Plan to limit public comment at Jersey City council meetings draws Fulop's ire
#52
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4646
Offline

Posted on: 2014/8/21 16:50
Print Top


Re: Plan to limit public comment at Jersey City council meetings draws Fulop's ire
#51
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4646
Offline
Everyone spoke against this except RL Williams. In case you don't remember RL Williams he was Schundler former aide who was on the library board but was accused of spending the library credit card at strip joints in NYC. He spoke for the ordinance. So it was probably 30 to 1.

Posted on: 2014/8/21 8:58
Print Top


Re: Plan to limit public comment at Jersey City council meetings draws Fulop's ire
#50
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/12/11 19:13
From Right here!
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 756
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
This ordinance is defeated. Hooray!


There goes any chance anyone else had to speak. You and your friends must have been dancing in the streets.

Posted on: 2014/8/21 7:18
Print Top


Re: Plan to limit public comment at Jersey City council meetings draws Fulop's ire
#49
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4646
Offline
This ordinance is defeated. Hooray!

Posted on: 2014/8/20 21:49
Print Top


Re: Plan to limit public comment at Jersey City council meetings draws Fulop's ire
#48
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/2/6 18:13
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1196
Offline
I said my piece.

http://hudsonreporter.com/view/full_s ... letters_story_left_column

Five minutes to address the City Council is not enough time
Aug 17, 2014

Dear Editor:

I am writing to express opposition to a recent Jersey City Municipal Council effort introducing an ordinance that would place a time limit on speakers who comment during the second reading of an ordinance.

At present, speakers can take as long as necessary to address an ordinance. There are many times that this is the one and only time to speak publicly on an ordinance before it is adopted. The time given to this legally-mandated opportunity to address our city’s legislation is a small cost to our democracy.

Like many people who participate by speaking or just listening, I have attended council meetings that have extended well past midnight and like many people who attend, I also would prefer to be home with my family, but instead choose to take advantage of the opportunity to participate in our public process.

I do believe that speakers would be much more effective if they would gather their thoughts and speak concisely. However, we are just regular people and unfortunately are not always experienced in public speaking. This does not mean that what we have to say isn’t just as important as those who are. Notably a five-minute limit may not be enough time to question or address the budget and land use issues.

There are other, better ways the council can cut the length of its meetings: Start on time, minimize the time spent on pre-session awards, citations and honors that include photo-ops and council speeches (this can be done at other times or events,) balance out and distribute issues across meetings so hot or controversial issues are not lumped together, the council president could exercise more control over the commentary of the public and council to keep it on topic and prevent it from being repetitive and lastly consider holding the public comment portion at the beginning of the meeting.

There are many bigger, more pressing issues facing our council and city than fine tuning how meetings run and other, better ways to address it. Reducing or restricting public participation is the wrong path to take. Most council members worked very hard for the opportunity to serve. They should accept that it entails listening to those who come out to speak.

I ask our City Council to reject this proposal and get back to the issue at hand – governing our city, and they can start with approving the municipal budget which is again, like most years, late.

Sincerely,
Daniel Levin



Posted on: 2014/8/19 15:13
Print Top


Re: Plan to limit public comment at Jersey City council meetings draws Fulop's ire
#47
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4646
Offline
Letter to the editor in the Jersey City Reporter:
http://www.hudsonreporter.com/view/fu ... -money?instance=more_page

Posted on: 2014/8/10 18:14
Print Top


Re: Plan to limit public comment at Jersey City council meetings draws Fulop's ire
#46
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4646
Offline
The reason I brought up the past, is because the same thing is happening again. There is no reason for this administration to give KRE a 30 year abatement when the property is next to the PATH while it is also receiving $10 million for redevelopment bonds. Also, there is no reason to issue 30 year extension to Salem Lafayette giving that development a 66 year abatement. History in Jersey City keeps repeating itself. Yes, it is a lovely day, I just returned from Liberty Park, hopefully the casino gambling will not destroy the park.

Posted on: 2014/7/27 16:37
Print Top


Re: Plan to limit public comment at Jersey City council meetings draws Fulop's ire
#45
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/12/11 19:13
From Right here!
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 756
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Heights, you must be a Fulop supporter with a city job. I care about the people who live here, I have seen my neighbors throughout the years leave or lose their homes through high taxes. Recently, I received the Annual Debt Statement, we are still paying for bonds that previous mayors floated that is costing us millions today. One of these bonds is the Fiscal Year Adjustment bonds floated in 1991 for $128.9 million. The bonds were refinanced again in 2006, costing taxpayers money. So did these bonds fix sewerage, no. It went to pay cops salary while then McCann was lowering the tax abatement agreement for 101 Hudson St. Our gross debt is nearly $900 million. Most of our debt is related to paying terminal leave since the 1990s. I am not against debt but honestly why should we subsidize developers while our cost continue to rise? The only reason we receive a $2.1 tax decrease this year is due to the fact some abatements expired and their ratable base was added to total base the county use to strike the budget. But Jersey City is still has less value compared to the 1988 reval when we were between $6 to $7 billion. We are below the $6 billion thanks to abatements. It is not my job as a taxpayer to make sure developers receive a safety net from taxpayers.



You assume much madame. I am neither supportive nor non supportive, depends on the issue at hand. But your obsession has others perceiving you as lifeless, someone sad. Your knowledge of what has happened in the past is phenominal but being able to give the exact dates, times and who was sitting in the back row and your insistance on repeating this history time and time again has discouraged people, like myself, from attending meetings because, well, enough is enough.

Now, I am out the door for a nice afternoon with friends. You should try the same.

Posted on: 2014/7/27 13:05
Print Top


Re: Plan to limit public comment at Jersey City council meetings draws Fulop's ire
#44
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4646
Offline
Heights, you must be a Fulop supporter with a city job. I care about the people who live here, I have seen my neighbors throughout the years leave or lose their homes through high taxes. Recently, I received the Annual Debt Statement, we are still paying for bonds that previous mayors floated that is costing us millions today. One of these bonds is the Fiscal Year Adjustment bonds floated in 1991 for $128.9 million. The bonds were refinanced again in 2006, costing taxpayers money. So did these bonds fix sewerage, no. It went to pay cops salary while then McCann was lowering the tax abatement agreement for 101 Hudson St. Our gross debt is nearly $900 million. Most of our debt is related to paying terminal leave since the 1990s. I am not against debt but honestly why should we subsidize developers while our cost continue to rise? The only reason we receive a $2.1 tax decrease this year is due to the fact some abatements expired and their ratable base was added to total base the county use to strike the budget. But Jersey City is still has less value compared to the 1988 reval when we were between $6 to $7 billion. We are below the $6 billion thanks to abatements. It is not my job as a taxpayer to make sure developers receive a safety net from taxpayers.


Posted on: 2014/7/27 12:32
Print Top


Re: Plan to limit public comment at Jersey City council meetings draws Fulop's ire
#43
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/12/11 19:13
From Right here!
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 756
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I guess you didn't see me spend 3 days at the St. Anthony's Festival. And yes, I do have a great personal life.


Anyone can spend 3 days at a festival. So what did you do? I wonder how you can have a great personal life when all you do is attend every town meeting in the tri state area (tongue in cheek), looking for the good in those towns so you can come back and berate your own.

Posted on: 2014/7/27 12:06
Print Top


Re: Plan to limit public comment at Jersey City council meetings draws Fulop's ire
#42
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/12/11 19:13
From Right here!
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 756
Offline
Quote:

FGJCNJ1970 wrote:
Hi. Had to chime in here since I was dragged into this out of nowhere and am just seeing this.

Since the election, what over a year and two months ago, I believe I have been to attend a council meeting maybe three - possibly four times tops. I can't go to more because I work most Wednesday nights moonlighting over at Pier 1 doing closing shift and weekends.

I do know I was at the council meeting when they voted on the 30/35 year tax abatement for Journal Square and all that bonding they did in the same meeting. (who wasn't there? Ward E council person.) That was not needed, as JSQ is a major transit hub and not an urban blight area where development would not normally occur. I spoke out then.

Another time I talked about taxes in general (as high taxes are the main reason JC will continually find itself NOT the best mid-sized city as Mayor Fulop wants it to be). In fact, while NYC is the #1 most unhappy city... JC is not far behind at #8. Why? High cost of living and high taxes. And the #1 state that folks are fleeing from, according to Forbes Magazine, now for several years running.... New Jersey. Why? High Taxes.

I also showed up at that meeting when the ambulance fiasco packed the chambers. I didn't speak then, but watched in disbelief at the fiasco wondering what was the reason behind this.

And the last time I was there was about a month ago when Council doled out a lucrative 20 year abatement for yet another HYATT hotel at exchange place. For a global company that is very profitable... I even brought financials and quarterly report numbers. They can pay their fair share of taxes. Why are we giving them tax breaks??? The current council doesn't listen to facts and figures. So something is wrong, and now they don't want to listen at all.

I also spoke out against the closing of Newark Avenue at the same meeting... walk around... shuttered stores everywhere downtown, and closing Newark Ave - even one section - will hurt commerce down the road, west of Erie St.. (Guess who wasn't there at that council meeting either. Ward E councilperson. And it was her ordinance. Sorry, no excuse.)

And, just FYI, last time I spoke, I was well within 5 minutes in my comments. Apparently the current council can't comprehend anything more than a few sound bites. I blame the internet as they are always fooling around with their phones and tablets and not paying attention anyway IM'ing with the boss in the other room across the hall.

Finally, the whole reason I ran for Council in 2013 was because the Jersey City train had gone off the tracks. And given what I am seeing one year into the new Fulop administration, the train hasn't moved and not much has changed. For instance, why is the 2014 budget not passed? Team Fulop was so quick to give us a 8% tax increase on July 17, 2013. Yet we can't get that tax cut they've been promising and today is July 27, 2014.

Smoke and mirrors folks.

So thanks for dragging me into this, but you are making broad statements that are very disingenuous. And btw, Yvonne knows her numbers. More so than anyone on that council.

P.S. HeightsBrat... You say "not a single one of them has run for office." Well, yes I did. And, I did quite well as an independent, not having Steven Fulop's coat tails and multi-million dollar marketing budget to ride on like some others. All I know is, that money will be gone next time around as Fulop runs for himself - for Governor, leaving behind one heck of a mess to be cleaned up. (think Cory Booker/Newark - mess).

Quote:

HeightsBrat wrote:

You know what I find absolutely hysterical. You got people like Yvonne, Mia, Fletcher and whoever else they hang with, constantly mouthing off. They are the most negative people ever. Nothing is ever good enough in their opinion. Yet not a single one of them has run for office, or if they have, they have proven to be unelectable. They have never seemed to be able to put a point across that anyone has put any stock in. Says alot in my opinion.


Oh rah, rah Fletch for selectively putting yourself out there. How clever to only quote me as saying "not a single one of them has run for office." when the full sentence read "Yet not a single one of them has run for office, or if they have, they have proven to be unelectable." Mentioning your name as part of the gloom and doom cabal is dragging you into it and you just so happened to see this? I suspect the truth is that you are a lurker or one of your peeps called you up. Thank you for all the fabulous things you have tried to do. Like I have also said, I stopped attending council meetings because of the negativity of the people who hog all the time speaking to evey issue without being able to get anything constructive done. That hogging also successfully prevents some poor schlub, who may have something to say, from democratically having his 15 minutes.


Posted on: 2014/7/27 12:00
Print Top


Re: Plan to limit public comment at Jersey City council meetings draws Fulop's ire
#41
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/11/13 13:42
From 280 Grove Street
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4129
Offline
Resized Image


Resized Image

Posted on: 2014/7/27 11:41
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.
Print Top


Re: Plan to limit public comment at Jersey City council meetings draws Fulop's ire
#40
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4646
Offline
So you are comfortable with buying an abatement for 20 or 30 years in prime locations, micro apartments in Van Vorst, changing zoning at Unico Towers, adding more job titles than Healy had (by the way, there is now a new job title for assistant of Cultural Affairs), or taking the EMS contract from the Medical Center? I really can go on. I speak on issues that is important to my pocketbook or my community.

Posted on: 2014/7/27 11:10
Print Top


Re: Plan to limit public comment at Jersey City council meetings draws Fulop's ire
#39
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/11/13 13:42
From 280 Grove Street
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4129
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
You have this avatar 'Stop electing idiots,' but when people raise questions on the behavior of Fulop or the council, you flipped out. So it is OK to attack Healy but not Fulop or his council? Personally, I voted for him and got many neighbors to do the same. The difference is, I don't accept bad governance from Fulop or his council but you do.


Not so Yvonne, I'll 'can' Fulop with the same passion AS Healy, however your complaints are constant, ridiculous and you look for provocation at every opportunity - For me, you have ended up being the boy who cried wolf.

Posted on: 2014/7/27 10:59
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.
Print Top


Re: Plan to limit public comment at Jersey City council meetings draws Fulop's ire
#38
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4646
Offline
You have this avatar 'Stop electing idiots,' but when people raise questions on the behavior of Fulop or the council, you flipped out. So it is OK to attack Healy but not Fulop or his council? Personally, I voted for him and got many neighbors to do the same. The difference is, I don't accept bad governance from Fulop or his council but you do.

Posted on: 2014/7/27 10:40
Print Top


Re: Plan to limit public comment at Jersey City council meetings draws Fulop's ire
#37
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/11/13 13:42
From 280 Grove Street
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4129
Offline
Quote:

HeightsBrat wrote:
You know what I find absolutely hysterical. You got people like Yvonne, Mia, Fletcher and whoever else they hang with, constantly mouthing off. They are the most negative people ever. Nothing is ever good enough in their opinion. Yet not a single one of them has run for office, or if they have, they have proven to be unelectable. They have never seemed to be able to put a point across that anyone has put any stock in. Says alot in my opinion.


Charlie Balcer
Resized Image


Yvonne Balcer and Bob Duval
Resized Image


Fletcher Gensamer
Resized Image





Posted on: 2014/7/27 4:44
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.
Print Top


Re: Plan to limit public comment at Jersey City council meetings draws Fulop's ire
#36
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/11/29 13:19
From Jersey City, NJ
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 278
Offline
Hi. Had to chime in here since I was dragged into this out of nowhere and am just seeing this.

Since the election, what over a year and two months ago, I believe I have been to attend a council meeting maybe three - possibly four times tops. I can't go to more because I work most Wednesday nights moonlighting over at Pier 1 doing closing shift and weekends.

I do know I was at the council meeting when they voted on the 30/35 year tax abatement for Journal Square and all that bonding they did in the same meeting. (who wasn't there? Ward E council person.) That was not needed, as JSQ is a major transit hub and not an urban blight area where development would not normally occur. I spoke out then.

Another time I talked about taxes in general (as high taxes are the main reason JC will continually find itself NOT the best mid-sized city as Mayor Fulop wants it to be). In fact, while NYC is the #1 most unhappy city... JC is not far behind at #8. Why? High cost of living and high taxes. And the #1 state that folks are fleeing from, according to Forbes Magazine, now for several years running.... New Jersey. Why? High Taxes.

I also showed up at that meeting when the ambulance fiasco packed the chambers. I didn't speak then, but watched in disbelief at the fiasco wondering what was the reason behind this.

And the last time I was there was about a month ago when Council doled out a lucrative 20 year abatement for yet another HYATT hotel at exchange place. For a global company that is very profitable... I even brought financials and quarterly report numbers. They can pay their fair share of taxes. Why are we giving them tax breaks??? The current council doesn't listen to facts and figures. So something is wrong, and now they don't want to listen at all.

I also spoke out against the closing of Newark Avenue at the same meeting... walk around... shuttered stores everywhere downtown, and closing Newark Ave - even one section - will hurt commerce down the road, west of Erie St.. (Guess who wasn't there at that council meeting either. Ward E councilperson. And it was her ordinance. Sorry, no excuse.)

And, just FYI, last time I spoke, I was well within 5 minutes in my comments. Apparently the current council can't comprehend anything more than a few sound bites. I blame the internet as they are always fooling around with their phones and tablets and not paying attention anyway IM'ing with the boss in the other room across the hall.

Finally, the whole reason I ran for Council in 2013 was because the Jersey City train had gone off the tracks. And given what I am seeing one year into the new Fulop administration, the train hasn't moved and not much has changed. For instance, why is the 2014 budget not passed? Team Fulop was so quick to give us a 8% tax increase on July 17, 2013. Yet we can't get that tax cut they've been promising and today is July 27, 2014.

Smoke and mirrors folks.

So thanks for dragging me into this, but you are making broad statements that are very disingenuous. And btw, Yvonne knows her numbers. More so than anyone on that council.

P.S. HeightsBrat... You say "not a single one of them has run for office." Well, yes I did. And, I did quite well as an independent, not having Steven Fulop's coat tails and multi-million dollar marketing budget to ride on like some others. All I know is, that money will be gone next time around as Fulop runs for himself - for Governor, leaving behind one heck of a mess to be cleaned up. (think Cory Booker/Newark - mess).

Quote:

HeightsBrat wrote:

You know what I find absolutely hysterical. You got people like Yvonne, Mia, Fletcher and whoever else they hang with, constantly mouthing off. They are the most negative people ever. Nothing is ever good enough in their opinion. Yet not a single one of them has run for office, or if they have, they have proven to be unelectable. They have never seemed to be able to put a point across that anyone has put any stock in. Says alot in my opinion.

Posted on: 2014/7/27 2:04

Edited by FGJCNJ1970 on 2014/7/27 2:24:06
Print Top


Re: Plan to limit public comment at Jersey City council meetings draws Fulop's ire
#35
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4646
Offline
I guess you didn't see me spend 3 days at the St. Anthony's Festival. And yes, I do have a great personal life.

Posted on: 2014/7/26 19:09
Print Top


Re: Plan to limit public comment at Jersey City council meetings draws Fulop's ire
#34
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/12/11 19:13
From Right here!
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 756
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
What is positive about neighbors losing their homes (2,300 according to the tax collector just this year alone) while the city gives out lucrative abatements? The city cares about affordable houses not affordable taxes, the reason for the 85% municipal increase in five years. There are paid spokespeople whose job is to sugarcoat the truth, that is not my job.


Nor is it your job to be the harbinger of the apocalypse. Try something new and daring, like being happy and smiling. Take a night off, go to one of the festivals taking place in the area and look for something good to say about something.

Posted on: 2014/7/26 18:33
Print Top


Re: Plan to limit public comment at Jersey City council meetings draws Fulop's ire
#33
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4646
Offline
What is positive about neighbors losing their homes (2,300 according to the tax collector just this year alone) while the city gives out lucrative abatements? The city cares about affordable houses not affordable taxes, the reason for the 85% municipal increase in five years. There are paid spokespeople whose job is to sugarcoat the truth, that is not my job.

Posted on: 2014/7/26 17:56
Print Top


Re: Plan to limit public comment at Jersey City council meetings draws Fulop's ire
#32
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/12/11 19:13
From Right here!
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 756
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
At least when I mouth off, I sometimes save the city money. When a previous council wanted to purchase the present board of ed building, the price was over $12 million. But when I discover the developer appealed his taxes, the property value was practically nothing. The council heard me, renegotiated the price and the taxpayers saved $3.1 million on the purchase price. Other activists have done similar. This is the reason there should not be a time limit. The council needs to better organize their agenda before they silence the public.


Maybe if you took a shot at being positive about something - anything - you may get better results. Your constant the sky is falling, the end is nigh, yada, yada, yada is a turnoff. I stopped going to council meetings cause you and your friends hog all the time. Unlike you, some of us have to get up for work the next day and we want to try to maintain a positive outlook.

Posted on: 2014/7/26 17:19
Print Top


Re: Plan to limit public comment at Jersey City council meetings draws Fulop's ire
#31
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4646
Offline
At least when I mouth off, I sometimes save the city money. When a previous council wanted to purchase the present board of ed building, the price was over $12 million. But when I discover the developer appealed his taxes, the property value was practically nothing. The council heard me, renegotiated the price and the taxpayers saved $3.1 million on the purchase price. Other activists have done similar. This is the reason there should not be a time limit. The council needs to better organize their agenda before they silence the public.

Posted on: 2014/7/26 15:13
Print Top




(1) 2 »




[Advanced Search]





Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!



LicenseInformation | AboutUs | PrivacyPolicy | Faq | Contact


JERSEY CITY LIST - News & Reviews - Jersey City, NJ - Copyright 2004 - 2017