|
Re: Audit urges major changes in Jersey City development deals
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
 
|
You can pass all the ordinance and code changes you want. Without a commitment and a structure to enforce those changes, they aren't worth the paper they are written on.
I look forward to reading the full report, but ethics code changes without a truly independent ethics commission, and without an independent supporting counsel, ensures there will be no effective enforcement. With the city facing a $40-70 million dollar budgetary short fall, it's unlikely that any real change will occur. G
Posted on: 2009/12/13 23:57
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Embankment- Update Thread
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Although the Chief Justice's credentials might warrant a premium, I think the average taxpayer might might have hard time accepting $580/hr as a reduced public service rate -- even though I'm quite certain it represents a substantial discount from his standard rates.
For comparative purposes, the US State Department pays an equivalent hourly rate of about $200/hour for specialized consulting attorneys. I sure do hope the Chief Justice is worth his hourly rate, as this exercise will take some amount of skill and finesse to arrive at a result both parties can live with. At the end of the day, it probably will come down to what number Mr. Hyman will accept to go away and leave the embankment for the community. I wish the Chief Justice all the best! G 
Posted on: 2009/12/1 16:21
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Jersey City Council to vote on spending $4.6 million for parking authority building
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
On this issue, I am 100% behind Councilman Fulop's position.
A new appraisal is absolutely required if the transaction is be considered on its economic merits, but I would suggest that the transaction itself is perhaps unnecessary and wasteful in the current economic climate. To the extent that the US Post Office is running a $7 billion dollar deficit and looking to cut even Saturday services, this makes them a potentially unreliable long-term tenant. Further, when Jersey City itself will face its own budgetary challenges, the focus should be on avoiding unnecessary expenditures, and taking on an overvalued $4.6 million dollar investment is one we don't need.
Posted on: 2009/11/26 14:19
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Update
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Hi Pooper:
There's nothing much to clarify in my post at this point. A park conservancy is just one idea (which I'm not attached to) for a formalized and more permanent structure that could possibly support the need for more than the city minimum level of maintenance. On the other hand, I am very open to hearing alternative suggestions or approaches that would achieve the same goal and which would have a minimum of downside issues associated with it. I've got no pre-ordained idealogical positions for or against one structure or another. Further, this conversation is not a matter of me promoting one idea over another, as others may have better alternatives. Getting to an acceptable solution will simply require more serious thought, discussion and planning from a broader audience, and I'd like to hear what those might be. If you don't like a conservancy approach, feed us some alternatives that don't have the downsides you perceive. Whatever the end result of the process is, putting it into action will require money and a structure. I do have some firmly entrenched opinions about what hasn't worked in the past, and that's plain to see from this and other threads. I'm just looking for a more positive path to the future. All the best. Geoff
Posted on: 2009/11/24 18:44
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Update
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
It's a shame to return to the same, old counter-productive conversations of the past.
We have a newly renovated park coming on line in the coming months, which we can all be proud of. In my opinion, protecting that investment will require a new, professional approach to ensuring that it's properly maintained -- gardens, plantings and all else associated with the park. While the solution for providing that maintenance will require further thought, discussion and planning, one thing is clear -- returning to the old, ad hoc approaches of the past is not among them. All the best. Geoff
Posted on: 2009/11/24 15:56
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Update
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Jon / Pooper:
Please do recall I did say that governance would be the challenge. I'm not offering you any solutions to this most thorny of problems, but thanks for helping me illustrate the point. If people can see merit in the concept, and are more willing than not to place community interests before personal ego and self-interest, it may have a miniscule chance of coming into existence. As for chances of success, I'm not giving any odds. All the best. Geoff
Posted on: 2009/11/20 2:44
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Update
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
brewster wrote:
Quote: There is another option we've discussed for years, a Park Conservancy Fund to hire maintenance for the park with money raised from residents, condo assn's, corporations and developers. I've said for years I would donate $100 per year to the park. think how easily we could raise the money for a 1/2 time groundskeeper. Call it a generous $30K, that would only be 300 $100 donations, but I'll bet the Silvermans alone would be good for several thousand. Maybe now's the time. We don't want our park crapped up again but we can't depend on a volunteer emerging as dedicated as Parkman. Let's put our money where our mouths are. As one of the progenitors of the Park Conservancy Fund concept, I would have to agree with Brewster that now is the time to re-examine this idea. Although simple in principle, the challenge will be in properly structuring a 'balanced' governance structure for such a Fund to avoid being captured by any single set of interests -- be it developer, community organizations, or individual residents. It may also require local legislation similar to that used to establish the various local special improvement districts around the city. Although the SIDs have their own operational and political challenges, a Park Conservancy Fund would need to be manged professionally, with full transparency and financial accountability to the local community that it would serve. All the best. Geoff
Posted on: 2009/11/19 21:09
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: where to get a "rebuild letter" for mortgage application?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
A Rebuild Letter, also known as a Burn Letter, is essentially a confirmation to the lender (from your local zoning official), which confirms that the municipality will recognize the grandfathered, zoning status of a pre-existing, non-conforming use, in case of the building's destruction. If the building were to burn down (or be destroyed), it confirms that the building could be replaced in the same configuration as it was prior to it's destruction.
Posted on: 2009/11/10 16:32
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Ex-city inspector: I extorted big bucks
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Just the tip of the iceberg, unfortunately.
I'll be really impressed when and if the Feds examine more closely the role of third party expediters.
Posted on: 2009/10/25 13:58
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Tenth Street between Coles Street and Monmouth Street.
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Newport has two, approved redevelopment plans for rental apartment buildings to built atop the top empty embankments between Coles and Monmouth and Coles and Jersey Avenue.
Given the current economic environment, it's unlikely ground breaking will occur anytime soon. I would expect Newport to keep extending the approvals for those sites until conditions change. All the best. Geoff
Posted on: 2009/10/3 1:08
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Healy calls for independent audit, ethics training in wake of corruption probe
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Hi Observer:
You're probably right that there's really no need to conduct an audit, as the potential areas for serious conflict of interest in most of the city's processes are already well-known. What's been missing all these years is the political will and a well-defined and focused public demand to change these practices. I've seen an anti-corruption demand, but it's not focused on a "range" of needed and sustainable changes or reform. Further there still appears to be substantial fragmentation among those calling for reform to work together strategically without personalities getting in the way to deliver what's really needed. A sustainable change or reform is something that changes the city's process and procedures that will permanently outlast the resignation of any one or more targets of our anger. That anger has to be refocused into a demand for a range of specific reforms (and many are required). It's not about "who" needs to go or be in office, but about "what" needs to change beyond the personalities. If we don't take a stand for specific reforms, (and not kid ourselves that there's only one magic bullet reform), it will just simply happen again and again -- and we will have missed a real opportunity for reform. As for the abatement review committee, its been around in one form or another for almost as long as there have been abatement Although it's a bit off topic, I called for a wholesale revamp of the Abatement approval process in 2001, which included having it's entire process conducted in public and transparently, and including more independent composition, and clear, transparent policy guidelines for the issuance of abatements in the first instance -- consistent with the original intent of the abatement legislation -- i.e., to bring development to sectors of the city where its most needed. Robert Cavanaugh had a brilliant idea a number of years ago, which was to zone the city along abatement needs, as a more clear approach to determining whether abatement should be issued or not, and if so, what range of abatement options should be available in a particular zone. All the best. Geoff
Posted on: 2009/8/9 19:38
|
|||
|
||||
|
INDEPENDENT ETHICS COMMISSION
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
The City needs a truly independent Ethics Commission, with real teeth and power to take action in such cases.
The commission needs to operate independently from the City and the County, and its commission members need to be 100% independent from the City, County and political process-- meaning no city or county employees, should sit on the commission, nor should any publicly elected official or other appointee sitting on any other city or country structure. The above may require State and local legislative action to implement fully, but there is a structure in place, which has been largely ignored by the City to date. This would be but one element of a major, reform effort to stem corruption. Pay to play is but one, still very imperfect element, and needs to be augmented by efforts as described above. Ethics training is still required, but at this stage, it's an incredibly insufficient step to begin to address the issues at hand. All the best. G
Posted on: 2009/8/9 18:57
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Absolutely legit, "stretching the rules," or downright illegal?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
at my polling location in the heights during the citywide election, members from both major candidates (healy and manzo) were blatantly campaigning on the corner of the street by the polling place, but since the entryway to the polling place is tucked in about 40 feet from the curb, they 'technically' weren't breaking any laws. NJ State Election Law is extremely clear that there can be no electioneering of any kind within the polling place or room where the machines are located, or within 100 feet from the outside entrance to the polling place or room. See NJSA 19:34-15. Violation of this statute is considered a misdemeanor under State Law -- a disorderly person's offense. Also, it is prohibited to wear, display, sell give or provide any political badges, buttons or other campaign insignia within 100 feet of the outside entrance to the polling place or room or inside the polling place or room itself. See NJSA 19:34-19. There is only one exception: Badges furnished to challengers properly certified by the Board of Elections may be worn. Violation of this statute is considered a misdemeanor under State Law -- a disorderly person's offense. Another common violation observed during the recent municipal election cycle was the presence of unauthorized challengers in polling places without valid written permits issued by the county board of elections. See NJSA 19:7-1 et. seq. I was quite surprised to see numerous instances of people acting in this capacity without certificates or possessing certificates issued in the names of other individuals. All the best. Geoff
Posted on: 2009/6/10 13:57
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Steven Fulop & Guy Catrillo, trying to turn it into a two-man Downtown council race; accusations
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
As a point of clarification, the email in question was NOT sent out using any HPNA email list, or in the name of the HPNA.
To reiterate, as an administrator of the HPNA YahooGroups email list, this did not happen. For anyone to say otherwise, is simply idle and malicious gossip. All the best. Geoff
Posted on: 2009/5/8 15:57
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Embankment - Where do the candidates stand?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
I have to note that most nearly all candidates, Mayoral and Ward E Council appear to have "commitments" to support the preservation of the Embankment.
That being said, having a "commitment" is one of those great weasel words. Having just "a commitment" doesn't mean much of anything. Coupling demonstrative "action" consistent with the professed commitment gives it real substance. All the rest is fluff. I am most disappointed to see the two most internet enabled candidates, Councilman Fulop and Mayoral Candidate Levin, largely absent from demonstrating an "active" commitment to support the preservation of the Embankment, especially when it means the most to the EPC and the community. I don't think it's an oversight, but a conscious decision not to mobilize the Facebook and email resources at their disposal. Where are the emails urging support for the Embankment Coalition's effort to reach 1000 comments before the Surface Transportation Board? Perhaps, it's not too late to change course and bring these resources to bear, but the silence to date on this issue, especially from Councilman Fulop, is I think reflective of a conscious avoidance of active support for the preservation of the Embankment.
Posted on: 2009/4/23 23:56
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Update
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Steve Gold wrote:
Quote: The grass won't - and under existing laws, can't - be entirely off limits to dogs. From the Jersey City Municipal Code: Sorry Steve, but your statement that the grass can't be entirely off limits to dogs is wrong. I'm not advocating for any particular position or percentage, but the ordinance was written to provide flexibility for deciding how much of the park could be designated pet-free and by what process. 1. The Director of Public Works, after conducting a public meeting, may designate not more than 50% of the park as pet free. 2. Nothing stops the Director of Public works from recommending that more than 50% be so designated. If that's the case, the Municipal Council must pass a resolution to that effect. 3. Nothing in the ordinance prevents dogs from being walked anywhere on the pedestrian pathways. Btw, the HPNA appears to have dropped the ball on getting advance notice out to the community on the commencement of construction activities. Hopefully, they can get ahead of the curve going forward. All the best. Geoff
Posted on: 2009/4/14 18:44
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vote drops ed budget in state's hands - JC Board of Ed fails to pass a budget for the 2009-10 ye
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
Steve Fulop proposed some of the PILOT's be earmarked for the schools, but was shot down, naturally. Steve's proposal to earmark 5% for the school budget was a bad idea and fundamentally flawed from the start, and certainly nothing one might properly characterize as abatement reform -- a topic for a separate thread. It didn't address the real fundamental problem -- the expense side of the equation, which almost nobody seems to question. Besides the amount of revenue that theoretically could have been generated by his proposal was so minuscule, one could characterize it as a rounding error when compared to the total $600+ million school budget. The problem is neither abatements, per se, nor is a reval the real solution. Taxpayer fairness starts with getting a handle on out of control budgets -- line-by-line. All the best. Geoff
Posted on: 2009/4/7 7:05
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vote drops ed budget in state's hands - JC Board of Ed fails to pass a budget for the 2009-10 ye
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
It's easy to lose sight of the core issue when discussing tax abatements and their impact on the school and city budgets.
In simple terms, the real problem is that both the city and school budgets have become too big. The city got hooked on abatements as it redirected tax revenue intended for the schools, directly to the city. It has become a convenient Ponzi scheme to fill budgetary shortfalls on the city budget side of the equation. (Often the bum's rush to get abatements approved and to accelerate the payments resulted in fast tracking development projects, often at the expense of proper review and community interests.) On the other side of the coin, the city didn't worry much about the lost revenue to the school budget, as the State was essentially making up the shortfall. Well the game's about up. Even if we could eliminate all abatements today, we'd more or less only be moving money from one bucket back to another. Again, while spreading the tax burden more equitably across the 100% of tax base of what's currently abated and non-abated properties is conceptually more fair and the right thing to do as a matter of tax policy, the real fiscal problem will persist. Budget expenditures are growing faster than our ability to fund them. What should be of real concern is that the former continues to grow while the latter is actually contracting. Not good news in either the city or school budgets. There are two sides to every budget -- revenue and expenses. My two questions to all candidates and pundits alike on this site, are the following: 1. Expenses: Where's the pork (expenses) that need to be cut or economized in both the city and school budgets? What policies or areas of the budget need to be examined, trimmed or eliminated to reduce costs? 2. Revenue: What new revenue sources can be developed that would begin to take some of the burden off the residential taxpayer? If you wanted to eliminate abatements, how would you recommend we do it? A cold turkey or Nancy Reagan - just say no- approach to abatements does not address the real- issue of revenue replacement that would be necessary if we were to eliminate abatements. It's a zero sum game at the end of the day. If you want to kill abatements entirely, you've got to be able to step up to the plate and offer either some combination of expense reductions and/or revenue enhancements to maintain the status quo. I'm tired of paying more taxes and not seeing a real commensurate improvement in the delivery of city services and in the quality of education our schools offer. I'm also tired of others not paying their fair share, but when is the discussion on this board going to get real?
Posted on: 2009/4/6 22:44
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vote drops ed budget in state's hands - JC Board of Ed fails to pass a budget for the 2009-10 ye
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
+2 to T-Bired and Stani.
Jersey City has two problems -- the city budget and the school budget itself. The school budget dwarfs the city's budget -- that's where a major problem lies. We should expect and plan for further reductions in state aid contributions in the coming years. There are many areas of financial waste, which need to be comprehensively addressed -- line-by-line. Is our elected Board up to the task? I'm not so sure. At the end of the day, the responsibility lies right there with them. It's all about the budget and the efficiency with which that budget is spent. Today, I think it would be a fair characterization to say that the school budget is bloated and inefficient in its spending. I'd like to hear from BOE candidates, what they propose to get the budget under control, while still maintaining the quality our children deserve. All the best. G
Posted on: 2009/4/5 17:42
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: McCann: Teachers should forgo raises -- "for its 3,500 union members to avoid layoffs..."
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
I've got to strongly agree with Linky.
If you're going to seek any possibility of concessions from the teachers' union, you should be seeking concessions also from BOE management. It would be grossly unfair to ask the teacher's to bear 100% of the burden of this year's deficit without asking management to do the same. That being said, the school budget remains a ticking time-bomb. We should expect and plan for further reductions in state aid contributions in the coming years. There are many areas of financial waste, which need to be comprehensively addressed -- line-by-line. Is our elected Board up to the task? I'm not so sure. At the end of the day, the responsibility lies right there with them. It's all about the budget and the efficiency with which that budget is spent. Today, I think it would be a fair characterization to say that the school budget is bloated and inefficient in its spending. I'd like to hear from BOE candidates, what they propose to get the budget under control, while still maintaining the quality our children deserve.
Posted on: 2009/4/2 17:26
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Council moves to defer $14.8 million in pension payments
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
I'm no fan of deferring Jersey City?s 2008 pension funding, but I've really grown tired of reflexive, ad hominem criticisms on the part of our Ward E councilman. It might make for entertaining sound bites, but it doesn?t point the way forward on how to fix Jersey City's perennial financial and budgetary problems.
So is it the "height of irresponsibility" and an election year gimmick? What?s the alternative? Restore the $15 million pension fund payment to the budget? Would this be the politically correct reformist thing to do? It always appears to be a win-win when you get to blame the powers that be no matter what they do. If they defer and keep taxes steady -- they're "irresponsible". If they don't defer and raise taxes -- they're "irresponsible". If they cut from the police, fire and other essential city service budgets, placing residents at greater risk -- they?re ?irresponsible?. If we?re going to hold the city administration accountable for budgetary outcomes, why should we give the legislative branch of city government a free pass when it comes to their legislative responsibility to critically and thoroughly examine every element of the city?s budget -- line-by-line, and on a holistic basis? Our council people should not get off the hook by pointing the finger in the other direction and saying it's not within their legislative prerogative to propose alternatives or it?s not their role to scrutinize the budget with greater care. Jersey City?s financial and budgetary process has been broken for decades -- it?s a systemic problem we?ve let drag on way too long. Like Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme, we always found enough quick cash from new sources to string us along from year-to-year, and we managed to duck the inevitable. This worked as long as the economy and market around us was growing. We?ve had a number of close calls over the years, but it?s taken a financial credit crisis of global proportions to make the cracks plainly visible. The quick fix of choice in the flush years ? accelerating new tax abatements ? didn?t really come to the rescue in the 2008 budget, and it may fall farther short in 2009. I really hope I?m wrong, but with the real estate market still in turmoil, even previously agreed upon PILOT payments are at risk of falling short. It?s unfortunate, but the pension deferral for the 2008 budget year is perhaps an unavoidable best choice among alternatives that appear to range from poor to unacceptable. Call it what you want, election year or not, in the absence of better alternatives, the city probably made the right - but difficult call - to defer and avoid raising taxes. Raising property taxes now would make a bad situation even worse. How callous would it be to raise taxes on those far less fortunate Jersey City residents who teeter on the edge of foreclosure? Today?s article in the Jersey City independent comes to mind, and is an excellent read --> the Jersey City Independent. But we shouldn?t get too complacent. This year?s Hoboken property tax massacre could be the prequel for Jersey?s City?s own 2009 budget nightmare, especially if we continue accepting the status quo ante from our legislators There is plenty of waste to be trimmed without materially affecting the quality, effectiveness and efficiency of essential city services. Candidates who claim to be reformers should be tackling these issues head on, and visibly ? but they?re not. Are they too politically compromised or fearful of the deals they?ve made to risk an honest public discussion of how to fix our city?s budget? If so, then they are not very different than those they have railed against for the past four years. Geoff Elkind
Posted on: 2009/3/27 22:59
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Pheasant sighting in Liberty State Park?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Pheasant's are common to Liberty State park. As they are pretty stealthy birds (like wild turkey's), they are typically hidden from view among the tall grasses of the park. You have a better chance of seeing them either in the very early morning (after sunrise) or late afternoons (before sunset) -- typically in the mowed areas adjacent to the taller grasses. Happy bird watching!
Posted on: 2009/3/16 18:54
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Dan Levin tosses hat in Jersey City mayoral ring
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
Dan Levin is a good person with alot of integrity. He gives alot of himself to the city and is getting people involved in the process who might not be otherwise... though I think Dan's doing a great job doing exactly what he's doing -- running for Mayor with integrity. He's not for sale. All the best. Geoff
Posted on: 2008/12/4 20:03
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: ‘The Donald’ strikes again in Jersey City - Council considers naming street for Trump
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Trump Towers was developed by Dean Geibel, but the property will apparently be managed by Trump after completion. (See link below.)
Personally, I'd rather see the city license vanity street name changes or overlays for a fee (for other than for memorial purposes). At least this might bring in some significant revenue to the general treasury, and in these times, we need every revenue dollar we can get. The revenue stream from PILOTS is most definitely going to take a hit as a result of the credit crisis. All the best. Geoff http://www.corusbank.com/Commercial%2 ... 0Geibel-Jersey%20City.pdf
Posted on: 2008/11/25 22:24
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: ‘The Donald’ strikes again in Jersey City - Council considers naming street for Trump
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
One question:
Which city councilperson introduced the Trump street renaming ordinance? All the best. Geoff
Posted on: 2008/11/21 2:56
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: How much will new formula raise school taxes? - "Hikes could send local taxes soaring by 70 perc
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
It's not just the school funding allocation formula that's going to be taking a bite out of us all, but NJ's own state budgetary challenges will compound the pain.
We might be able to squeak by on the school funding challenge, but there will be no ducking overall state budgetary cuts when they come. At the end of the day, we need a BoE and school administration that is more proactive in anticipating and planning for significant state funding decreases, and doing their best to preserve the quality of education our city's kids deserve. "Wait-and-See," is not a proactive approach to managing the school budget, and both the BoE and school administration need to be sent a message that it can't be done entirely on the back of the local taxpayers. ... and, oh yes, a similar problem is looming on the municipal side of your tax bill... but that's a topic for another thread. All the best. Geoff
Posted on: 2008/11/21 2:53
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Gang Initiation Tonight...Is this real?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Below is a copy of an email from the East District JCPD Community Affairs Office Dina Reilly and a letter from the JCPD regarding this hoax. Excellent advice and an excellent response from the JCPD all around
All the best.
Geoff
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: east <policeeast@jcnj.org>
Date: Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 4:54 PM
Subject: Halloween Update
To: east <policeeast@jcnj.org>
The Jersey City Police Department was made aware of false and misleading
information being posted on the web regarding gang initiation. Please keep
the following in mind when reading posts online (regarding crime and
safety):
1. Is the information coming from a credible source? Was the information
issued by the Jersey City Police Department?
2. You can always call your respective districts (telephone numbers posted
on www.njjcpd.org) for confirmation of information.
Chief Comey has issued a letter regarding the false information posted on
web sites regarding gang initiation at www.njjcpd.org, Halloween Update. A
copy is also attached.
Please pass this information along to all community members, neighbors,
family and friends.
Have a happy and safe Halloween.
P.O. Dina Reilly
Jersey City Police Department
East District Community Relations Officer
Quote:
October 31, 2008 RE: Halloween Update On October 30,2008 an unknown individual(s) began posting false information regarding random shootings throughout the City of Jersey City. The erroneous information which was being posted on various websites caused an increased number of calls into our operations center seeking information. Although this increase did not cause a disruption in service it stood the potential to do so. The increased volume of calls could have potentially caused a delay in a response to a 911 call. The actions of this individual(s) placed residents in jeopardy and was at a minimum irresponsible and possibly criminal As a law enforcement agency we take our responsibilities very seriously. We devised an intelligence driven plan to protect our residents. During the period in question there was not one shooting in Jersey City. The men and women of the Jersey City Police Department have once again done an outstanding job. We are at the midpoint of an operational plan that was devised through intelligence gathering and community needs. In an effort to alleviate some of the fears of the community I have contacted the Hudson county Sheriff and asked for his assistance. Our goal is to have a uniformed officer at every primary and secondary educational facility within the city at the conclusion of the school day today. Our hope is that we will come to the end of our operational plan without incident, I can assure you that at 1:30 pm today, October 31, 2008, we have not experienced any major incidents. I can also assure you that we have no new intelligence to cause any concern. In the event that we had received any information that would have placed the public in jeopardy, we would have released that information immediately with the appropriate recommendations. Chief of Police Thomas Comey
Posted on: 2008/11/3 21:13
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Participate in the campaign to get better PATH service - fixmypath.com
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
The fix my PATH site was set-up by city councilman Fulop from Ward E (Downtown JC). If the site was set-up by the councilman, then why is there no attribution to that effect on the site? What's to hide? A more transparent, professional presentation and approach might actually encourage greater participation. All the best. Geoff
Posted on: 2008/10/29 16:14
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: More rants about the PATH
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
by Robocub on 2008/10/28 13:12:44 God knows there's no short list of issues that need fixing with the Port Authority, including their management and operation of the PATH, among other things. While I'm no great fan of the Port Authority, the site comes across as an unfocused, unprofessional, and perhaps, irresponsible, diatribe against the Port Authority. The ostensible purpose appears not to be really aimed at producing a constructive result, but at giving the "appearance" of doing something constructive. Perhaps the most disconcerting element is that there isn't a single, scintilla of a reference as to the identify of the responsible parties who are gathering the signatures, nor is there a clear statement of purpose or position letter the signatures are supposedly being collected for. The PATH does need fixing, but this is hardly a transparent, responsible approach, which will drive a successful result. All the best. Geoff
Posted on: 2008/10/28 20:07
|
|||
|
||||
|
Fix My Path Sponsors?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
A +1 to Grovester and GWB.
God knows there's no short list of issues that need fixing with the Port Authority, including their management and operation of the PATH, among other things. While I'm no great fan of the Port Authority, the site comes across as an unfocused, unprofessional, and perhaps, irresponsible, diatribe against the Port Authority. The ostensible purpose appears not to be really aimed at producing a constructive result, but at giving the "appearance" of doing something constructive. Perhaps the most disconcerting element is that there isn't a single, scintilla of a reference as to the identify of the responsible parties who are gathering the signatures, nor is there a clear statement of purpose or position letter the signatures are supposedly being collected for. The PATH does need fixing, but this is hardly a transparent, responsible approach, which will drive a successful result. All the best. Geoff
Posted on: 2008/10/28 20:04
|
|||
|
||||