Can we have a memorial for the policeman who arrested the drunken bum Healy?


Bradley Beach police reaction was 'way over top,' says Healy
Monday, June 19, 2006
By MICHAELANGELO CONTE and JACK HERMAN
JOURNAL STAFF WRITERS

BRADLEY BEACH - Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah Healy said he warned the man he was trying to calm down outside Barry's Tavern early Saturday morning that Bradley Beach police "don't play around."

And Healy - sporting cuts on his forehead, knees and shins, scrapes on his face and marks from handcuffs on his wrists - said yesterday that he learned that for himself when he was cuffed, Maced and arrested. He was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest after police say he interfered with their investigation outside the bar around 2 a.m., reports said.

Healy recounted the evening's events yesterday while sitting in Barry's, his sister's bar, whose walls are adorned with framed Jersey Journal news stories about the mayor.

Healy said he and his wife, Maureen, had just left the bar after a graduation party for his niece - who graduated from the State Police training facility - when he saw a man jumping on the hood of a car. After learning the man was upset because his girlfriend refused to let him drive home, Healy said he tried to calm the man down and warned him against giving the police a problem when they arrived.

But Healy, whom his spokeswoman said had drunk "a couple beers," apparently failed to heed his own advice.

One cop began to yell at the woman, Healy said, prompting him to tell the officer that she hadn't done anything wrong. The cop then grabbed his arm, Healy said.

"I pulled it away, but he said 'That's it,'" Healy said.

Healy put his hands behind his back to be handcuffed but the officer threw him to the ground, the mayor and witnesses said. Healy's head was smashed into the pavement, cutting him, said one witness, Herbert Cutolo, who was leaving the bar at the time and saw the incident.

Healy asked why he was being handcuffed, and the officer jammed a knee into his back, Cutolo said.

"He didn't resist at all, he was trying to talk to them and explain the situation" said Cutolo.

When Maureen Healy told police that her husband is the mayor of Jersey City, officers threatened to cuff her, using an obscenity, said Cutolo.

When Maureen Healy went to pick up the mayor's glasses from the ground, the officer pushed her down, too, the mayor said.

"It was just way over the top," Healy said. "(One cop) was the architect, the engineer of the whole episode."

Quote:

True Healy is a dysfunctional drunk who should resign.

But they are ALL corrupt.


btw- what is the name of that bar in the Heights where Healy's brother spends all his time falling off his bar stool?

It is a knee jerk reaction to take the 8 million without considering the downside. It would result in a tangible, detrimental impact, such as potentially lowering Jersey City's bond rating. Relying on instant fixes is what has led to many of our fiscal problems in the first place! We are better off letting the state keep the 8 million. and holding politicians - city, county and state - accountable. In JC there is a short term perspective. We have to stop the vicious cycle and start planning for the future. How do you improve government? Keep aware of what is happening at city hall and work with civicjc.org and others organizations that promote sound fiscal management and accountability.

Quote:

You are talking about the wrong politicain....Healy, one of the corrupt ones, is the one who wants the money and has no pride.


Gina

Steve,

Pride, accountablity, thinking about the future of the city instead of the quck fix? If he's adds all of these variables to the equation, I think we know what the mayor will do. He's taking the money.

"The biggest drawback to receiving the aid, now called "Special Municipal Aid," is that hiring and promotions would have to justified to and approved by the state Local Finance Board"

There is nothing wrong with that, you hear stories about people in 100K no-show jobs in New Jersey municipalities all the time. This might mean that people might get promoted based on their abilities not on how much money they kick back or who they are related too.

Take the money.

What absolute garbage to hear these corrupt politicians talk about pride.

What you're thinking of is called zero based budgeting, which forces department to start from scratch instead of lumping more money on the amount they got last year.
Granted it will take a lot of political will to implement it and make sure everyone sticks to it. But somewhere along the line it has to be done.

As for turning down $8 million in state money, well it's past the point of pride. Residential taxpayers are at wits end. I refer to the NY Times story of last week that showed property taxes grew many times the rate of taxpayer's salaries. Unfortunetely (except for Steve Fulop) most of the council never seems to have met an abatement it didn't want to grant and now we are paying for it. Quote:

Jersey City is in distress.

18% property tax increase, increased crime, the feeling of impending doom and gloom in our future as tax abatements expire and we the people make up for that economic loss and an increased division of the economic strata of the city.

Negatives articles about Jersey City in the papers should be combatted by getting to the root of the problems and fixing them, not dodging labels.

Developers? Heh...

They will build wherever they can get the biggest bang for their buck. It's not about the surrounding communites, they have invisible walls with the rest of Jersey City and have become cities within themselves.

I like the idea that hiring and promotions would have to be justified by the city, I have always wondered about the number of patronage jobs we pay for through our tax dollars along with other spending.

Reduce spending
Tax abatements only for the areas that need it, not the overdeveloped waterfront
Fight Crime

What really reflects poorly on this city are the hardcore realities such as crime stats, not the truth, that Jersey City is in distress.

FBI Uniform Crime Report
Jersey City (scroll down)
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2005preliminary/05table4.htm#gl

Every crime, except for rape increased from 2004 to 2005.

2005
Violent crimes 3,136
Murder 38
Rape 43
Robbery 1,642
Agg. Assault 1,413
Property Crime 8,729
Burglary 2,216
Larceny/theft 4,658
MotorVeh. theft 1,855
Arson 73

Take the $8 million and fix this city!

What 8 million from the state and all you have to do is be transparent and accountable on how this money is to be spent?

Hard decision for some politicians - with words like: transparent / accountable / justify / approval board

I don't think JC's reputation could get any worse if this 'charity money' was accepted.

I think there is a more salient point that nobody has touched upon. In receiving the funds (perhaps $8M), does this not remove the urgency for the city to find ways to operate more efficiently? There is nothing like pain (or taxpayer uproar) to get things changed. Sure we could use the funding, but the movtivation for cutting bullshit expeditures would be decreased in direct relation to the amount we get. Furthermore in future years, when the economy picks up and the city's revenue increases, we can expect that the city will never cut the fat and everyone will become resigned to the fact, that there is just no changing the wasteful nature of JCs budget.

I do want to clarify my point on this as I believe this is an important decision. Truth be told, this issue really bothers me more than this article let on. In the end though it will be the mayor?s decision and all of us will have no choice, but my hope is that conveying a different perspective will have an impact.

Firstly, let me write that there is no question that Jersey City should be getting state funding for being an economic engine to the entire state. That is the exact reason that you elect your state assemblymen and state Senators to convey this message. That is there job and you have 9 of them. Receiving money via a state distressed city program which lumps us together with Camden, Patterson etc? is not the correct way to get funding. It sends a message on many different levels internal to Jersey City, but also far beyond.

You may not think of it whenever you see it, but every single time that you see an article in the NYT, USA Today, NY Post etc.. which reflects poorly on our elected individuals, crime issues, or city as a whole, it hurts your pocket directly. It effects other people?s willingness to live and invest in the community because they feel skittish about the direction that the city is headed. This type of decision to enter a distressed city program is a direct reflection on that. Just ask Trump if he wants to build in Camden (it is right next Philadelphia)? Or ask financial institutions who finance these large condo projects how they feel about investment in distressed cities? I can go on all day but my point is that this affects marketability, it effects perception throughout the state, it effects potential homeowners who look at us versus our neighboring municipalities... it is just not worth $8mm

Mayor Cunningham and I shared a friendship for sure so sometimes I will admit I am biased, but we also shared the aspect of the Marine Corps which drills into your head the importance of pride in everything one undertakes because more often than not perception becomes reality. Believing that we are capable of truly being the greatest city is the first step to achieving that. Joining this program doesn?t send that message at all, it actually sends the opposite message. I truthfully believe that the sky is the limit as far as the future of Jersey City, if only sometimes we could get out of our own way. For a measly $8MM when you think of the grand picture of how big our budget is, it just isn?t worth it to me.

Quote:

I agree that the city needs to cut costs, but since this is something that our current administration doesn't seem to prioritize, I believe that the $8M state aid is worth the silly label that will be slapped on JC. Besides, our city has been called worse.

The best part about receiving the aid, besides the obvious, is the necessary checks and balance that will be instituted as a condition for receipt of the monies:

Quote:

What could be better than the admin having to justify its hiring and promotions? How quickly can we get this aid?

Healy to decide on state aid request
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
By KEN THORBOURNE
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah Healy said he will decide this week whether to pursue what used to be called "Distressed Cities" aid from the state.

The biggest drawback to receiving the aid, now called "Special Municipal Aid," is that hiring and promotions would have to justified to and approved by the state Local Finance Board, Healy said.

But these restrictions might be worth it, he added.

Healy - who met last week with Department of Community Affairs Commissioner Susan Bass-Levin about the potential funding - wouldn't say how much money he thought the program could yield. But a city councilman briefed by the mayor on the subject said Healy believes the city could reap around $8 million.

For taxpayers still reeling from an 18 percent property tax hit from the municipality and a 9 tax hike from the county, the money would be nothing to sneeze at, Healy said.

"When I became mayor there was a $50 million-plus structural deficit," Healy said. "That goes back 15 years . I and the rest of this city are still carrying that burden."

In order to receive the money, the city would have to prove it faces stiff financial challenges, Healy said.

Mayor Glenn D. Cunningham pulled Jersey City out of the program because he didn't think the $2 million the city received was worth the hassle - or the label of a "distressed city."

Ward E Councilman Steve Fulop said he agrees.

"I think the distressed cities program shows a lack of pride," Fulop said. "And from my point of view Jersey City is not a distressed city.

"The first thing we should pursue is cost-cutting, which hasn't been done at all to any great degree," he added.

Several other council members, including William Gaughan, Viola Richardson, and Council President Mariano Vega, said the city - and its taxpayers - could benefit from the extra money.

Having to justify expenditures could be useful discipline, Richardson said.

Gaughan argued that Jersey City deserves the money because the city's economy has created a lot of jobs over the past decade and a half.

Vega would rather live with the state "straight jacket" and receive the additional money, he said, "than ask taxpayers for another tax increase."