Now we know

"Development"/"Growth" vs Human Decency (4.00 / 1)

Thurman says,

I'm not against development, or redevelopment, as the case may be.  But who had input into this vision?  Who was asked what would make the city a better place to live?  There is talk of banning vehicular traffic - on Kennedy Boulevarde?

and

The Mayor is getting a lot of money for his re-election from developers these days.  Now we understand why.  Blame the residents of Jersey City.  If they weren't such filthy and poor people, the Mayor might deign to listen to them once in a while, too.

The whole of the "gold coast" has become a way for a few thousand people to become filthy rich millionaires off of the backs of what used to be middle class/blue collar/working poor areas/neighborhoods.

I remember moving into Hudson County as a child (from Brooklyn) and hearing someone saying that we were moving out into "the country".  lol

Growth and sane/organic development are indeed good things; but what has happened in Hudson County is "growth" as in tumor", not the good kind of growth.

As Thurman implies, it's all about the money.  I remember all the fires in Hoboken that paved the way for more "growth".  Lots of average working people lost their homes so a few greedy bastards could become millionaires.

This is called "gentrification" and the process is well under way.   Jersey City has already been sold out to developers in great measure.   The question at this point is do the people ther want to just go the whole hog and turn it into a complete extension of lower Manhattan?

From the pov of Manhattanites Hudson County is still "cheap".  And with the PATH system it's easy to get into/out of.

Is there a way to preserve the quality of life for the many working class/blue collar (and yes poor) people of Jersey City/Hudson County?

One thing I can say for sure is that these "developments" must NOT get any tax breaks or special treatment; on the contrary they need to be heavily taxed so that the actual quality of life for the ordinary human schlubs (as opposed to the rich gentry) who still comprise the MAJORITY of Hudson County residents will improve!

As long as Hudson County is run by complete whores/criminals/crooks/liars nothing much will change.

I suspect that the folks in charge there would sell the poor to dog food factories if the price were high enough and they thought they could get away with it; that how low, dirty and rotten these rotten bastards are.  

The only way out of this mess is for progressives, real progressives, to run for office and to WIN!!!

The people in charge will never "change their stripes".  They are what they are, crooks!!!   Whatever superficial/cosmetic "changes" the establishment makes will be just that, superficial and cosmetic.  

Unfortunately, most folks who are like Thurman Hart..and have his level of intelligence, astuteness, morality and political savvy are also loathe to run for office in political shit-holes like Hudson (and Bergen for that matter) County, because they know that their whole lives will be turned upside down and trashed by the scumbag sociopathic monsters that now own the system.

So, Mayor Healy, please prove me wrong!  I challenge you to sit down with folks like Thurman Hart and with local community groups that represent the non-"gentry" to come up with development plans that a real progressive would sign off on.

Thanks to Thurman for bringing these issues to light!

---

by: Nick Lento @ Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 16:29:14 PM UTC

Can you post his contributions from developers with contracts please (0.00 / 0)

instead of making factless accusations - link us to the ELEC reports which link how much in contributions he got vs. his development projects.

---

by: vingopal @ Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 16:37:07 PM UTC

Wake up, please (0.00 / 0)

Lowell Harwood, managing partner of the "New Journal Square" project told the Jersey Journal that Steve Fulop's pay-to-play ban was wrong because "They are taking away my right to elect the person I want to elect." (See: Money faucet off??? by Ken Thorbourne)

As for receiving money from developers in general:
- Highland Port Development Corp. 4/21/08 gave $600 to bring aggregate up to $2,600

- J. Albanese Construction 6/4/2008 gave $1,000 to bring aggregate up to $3,000

- Neglia Engineering Associates 5/19/2008 gave $1000

- Falcon Construction 5/13/2008 gave $1000

- Imperial Construction 6/5/2008 gave $500 to bring aggregate up to $1500

-Americo Seabra (owner of Highland Port) 6/5/2008 gave $1000

-Jonathan Schwartz of BNE Associates on 6/9/2008 gave $2600

- Dolan Commercial Real Estate Services on 6/23/2008 gave $2600

- SCOTT HARWOOD on 6/30/2008 gave $500

- Robert Richards of Franklin Development Group on 5/12/2008 gave $2600

That's only from the last filing.  

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 17:20:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

By the way (0.00 / 0)

Dolan Commercial Real Estate is also directly involved in the Journal Square development.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 17:31:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let's not forget (0.00 / 0)

the tax giveaway that Mayor Healy gave his buddies to get this done.  Thirty year tax abatements?  And yet my taxes go up every year.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 17:33:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lets not forget (0.00 / 0)

in-kind payments:
- Robert Richards of Franklin Development Group $2600 on 5/12/2008

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 17:49:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Vin, Imagine How Different The Face of.... (0.00 / 0)

...New Jersey would be if we had 100% public campaign financing for the last 50 years!

Imagine how different places like Hoboken and Jersey City would be if pols had to do what people wanted instead of being bought and paid for buy corrupting interests "contributing" money to their campaigns.

Of course, this applies across the board to all issues; but in the realm of "growth" and "development" the rape of the common good is especially egregious.

We progressives need to do whatever it takes to make legalized bribery a thing of the past; that means making it criminal to buy off law makers.

If that means a constitutional amendment; then so be it.

I want to see people 50 years from now looking back and thanking today's progressives for taking America back from the greedy ruthless de facto criminals that currently dominate just about every sphere of life in this nation, especially real estate, construction, "development" and financial "services".

Meanwhile, Mayor Healy; I've met you and heard you speak....you come off as a decent nice guy to me.....you eloquently support Barack Obama....please accept my challenge to meet with Thurman Hart and representatives of the working class communities of your city before you sign off on giving any more tax breaks to the developers  and on any more malignant "growth" in Jersey City.

If pols did what was actually good for the people they wouldn't need a penny in "contributions" from monied interests bribing them to shaft the general public.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 19:22:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

if contracts go to the most qualified people, i have no problem with that (0.00 / 0)

$500 and $1000 donations aren't buying  million dollar contracts.

Someone has to do the work, as long as the process is honest, I don't see any problem with it. Someone has to get the contract....If they are doing good work, I don't see the problem and I don't see it as 'legal bribery'

Its one thing if someone comes up to you and says here in $3000 for a contract. Its another thing, when a company, who is capable and competent, gets a contract to do towing or landscaping or whatever contract in town. There should be no pressure for those companies to donate to the incumbent politician who gave them the contract. If they are, than that is a completely different story

Look, I own my own small business. I use printers and vendors I know and have a relationship with, people who I know will do a good job and keep the price low.

A municipality should be run like a business - i agree with Thurman on the issue of tax abatements etc. but I think an administration has the right to use which developers and which contractors they want as long as their is no promise to donate and as long as there is NO evidence of a mayor dropping a developer who didn't donate to the campaign.

I think you need more facts and if it ever came out that a mayor forced a developer to donate to his campaign in exchange for a contract, thats wrong and that mayor should be held accountable.

Everyone has a right to donate to a campaign and to ban developers or lobbyists from donating is ridiculous.

Gov. Corzine took a great step last week in calling for real ethics reform in curbing the power of county and municipal machines. Thats where the real problem is, when someone donates $10,000 to the state party, $25,000 to the county party and funnels it to the local candidate. There should be one max out contribution for everyone with strict guidelines. That is the real issue of ethics in this state but to charge that a developer can't donate to a mayor or councilman is a violation of one's rights. As long as their is know agreement of contract for donation, there is nothing wrong with that.

To fix the system, you have to fix the laws.  

---

by: vingopal @ Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 19:58:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

sorry havent slept in a while (0.00 / 0)

as long as there is no agreement is whta i meant to say

---

by: vingopal @ Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 19:59:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The difference (0.00 / 0)

is that you aren't spending MY taxdollars.  I could care less who you hire to do what.

You've been around long enough to know that what is reported is only the tip of what moves politics.  But you want to act as if it isn't.  That's fine.  But don't ask me to buy into your delusion.

And, if you look, it isn't a matter of $500 or $1000 dollar donations.  It's a matter of multiple donations.  It's a matter of pressure on employees, which can't be measured by reports to NJ Elec.  It's a matter of someone not even being invited to the table to bid because they didn't give that $500 or $1000.  It's a matter of no-show jobs on the construction payroll that go to political supporters.  It's a matter of building interlocking directorships that are largely hidden from public view.

Maybe you'd like to explain how the vendors on this project all just happen to have donated to the Mayor.  All things being equal, you'd expect at least one person to pop up somewhere that wanted a different mayor.  Personally, I'm not so interested in protecting someone's right to buy the city council or assembly.  I don't think there is any such a right.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 20:10:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thurman (0.00 / 0)

I understand your point but taxdollars will needed to be used for whomever the developer is. If the project is necessary and good for the future of the constituency, your taxdollars will go there no matter what.

What do you want to change the law to? If you do business with the city, then you can't donate to elected officials in the city?

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, just curious on what your solution is without infringing the rights of individuals and proofing illegality.

Despite how dillusional u think i am, I believe the inherent, immediate power is the funneling of funds through political machines.

---

by: vingopal @ Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 00:37:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Who do you think (4.00 / 1)

funnels those funds?

"If the project is necessary..." - that is very much the entire point, isn't it?  At every step, it is the mayor and his handful of crony developers that are deciding what is and isn't necessary.

The solution is to simply move to public funding of elections.  No reasonable person donates thousands of dollars unless they expect something in return.  No one has an inherent right to determine the outcome of an election that should be put before the people.  Whether you do it by tampering with ballots or by burying the competition under multiple donations makes little difference.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 02:12:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What Always Amazes Me Is How.... (0.00 / 0)

.....(seemingly) little money it takes to buy influence.

For a hundred thousand in cumulative "donations" projects can get moved along that cost hundreds of millions in toto and that will put millions in profits in someone's pckets.

Or even at the local level, how a few thousand dollars can "help" to determine who gets which contracts for this or that service  (or who gets to keep an existing contract).

And, of course, there is (almost) never any direct/overt quid pro quo; this evidently is all done with winks and nods.....there isn't even much need for anyone to ever spell it out.   It's a culture of corruption.

Of course Vin is right to say that public money is always being spent; but imagine how differently it would be spent if the spender was being as careful with the money as s(he) was being if they were hiring a contractor to work on their own house.....or shopping at Staples for their own office supplies etc.

It should never be the case that governments spend MORE for goods and services than anyone could buy them for off the street at full retail.

Clearly, if there were no private "contributions" the way governments make policy and spend money would become radically different and far more efficient (assuming that there were draconian ethics laws in place to prevent them from just giving away the store to cronies and family etc).

Perhaps one bit of positive fallout from the financial crisis will be that the public's appetite for serious fundamental reforms will be stimulated as never before.

The real drama on all these issues will start after November 4th....

 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 03:03:28 AM UTC