56 Responses to ** City Council - 12/3/2008 **

Pages: « 1 2 [3]

1. 41. Katie_Scarlett | December 5th, 2008 at 3:58 pm

   stevens32 wrote:

   Katie_Scarlett wrote:

   stevens32 wrote:

   The problem with such a proposal is that it unfairly targets those with lower incomes (there are still a few of those in Hoboken) who may legitimately need a car for work. The rich would still be able to afford such an increase-because they either have the money or because they live in a home with private parking…

   But again-it’sall hypothetical, because to your point, such a proposal would be political suicide

   It doesn’t target the poor. I hate that misconception. It greatly inconveniences them, and they’ll have to budget differently, but the TARGET is ANYONE with cars on the street.

   You see that, right?

   So yea, someone making $30K a year is more inconvenienced by a $500 fee than someone making $300K a year, but that’s life in the big city. That $30K a year worker who has to drive to work may decide to live closer to their office, or whatever, rather than live in a town that is so car unfriendly.

   Katie - maybe “target” was not the right word, but - at the levels you’re talking about, such a fee would in fact be a regressive tax on lower income families (of which there are still a few in Hoboken).

   There are many in this town who do not make a lot of money who need a car for work. This would be much more than a simple “inconvenience” as you call it. It will potentially have more significant implications than having to “budget” differently. For some, such an increase would mean maybe not eating out as much, but for lower income residents it would mean having to decide whether to pay the increased fee or put enough food on table or pay their heating bill. I cannot believe you can actually be so flippant…

   It would definitely threaten the ability of some in this town to continue to make a living, feed their families, etc. And in this economy, with local taxes skyrocketing, and jobs being lost, it would be the wrong thing to do….

   While there are an increasing number of professionals in this town (of which I am one), we cannot forget that there are still a lot of people in this town who don’t make a lot of money. Such a proposal would be devastating to them (and much more than an “inconvenience”…as is the 47% local tax increase which is just coming due

   2 things:
   1. Prove that they need the car to get to work (most of the people you’re tlaking about work in Hoboken or somewhere along the light rail path)
   2. It’s not flippant, it’s economics.

2. 42. What the F | December 5th, 2008 at 7:35 pm

   Any bets on if Marine View Plazas Pilot is past due.
   I just wonder how many other older buildings are in the missing 20% pilot agreements. Imagine all that revenue lost and all the expense wasted on medical insurance for non employees. Thats our tax department hard at work, running a private tax practice and adding illegal apartments to his under assesed home. Please don’t get lost on the increase of Parking permits. Keep your eye on the bigger tax problem. The crooks are running this town. We all need to stand with castlepointwatcher.

3. 43. Tama Murden | December 5th, 2008 at 9:00 pm

   Re 42.: Interesting—s/b explored, along with Church Square Towers & Clock Towers.

4. 44. What the F | December 5th, 2008 at 9:33 pm

   FYI-Marine View Plaza built 1975.
   Words cannot explain my thoughts. Other than hiring all his friend$$$. Can someone explain to me what a mayor of hoboken actually does.

5. 45. truth1 | December 5th, 2008 at 10:06 pm

   PILOT records? Purchase Orders? Quarters? Balanced Budget are all missing in Hoboken

6. 46. davidcdavid64 | December 6th, 2008 at 2:33 am

   (Please excuse my spelling)
   It is very clear many on this site do not understand the nature of what has happened in this town. elected officials get rewarded by getting re elected. So, they gave handouts to those who grew up in the town counting on the yuppies to leave and not vote. You don’t get elected or appointed in this town based upon doing a good job. In fact if you tried to do a good job the system would throw you out because you would be causing too much trouble. when enough people vote who are willing to reward good policy instead of handouts the government will change. Since this is the system that everyone in city hall has grown up with and moved through they are unable to adjust because they don’t have the skills to move up in a system that is merit based. I would also like to point out that poor schools and high taxes keep those who would vote a merit based government into office out of the town. Therefore, it is not in city hall’s best interests to run a good government. It would only ensure that people who wouldn’t vote for them remain in the city and would vote them out of office. By making city employees live in town they ensure all city employees (and many living in the town), will vote for bad government. are you going to vote yourself out of a job and end the gravy train. Of course not, so don’t expect any big changes, because that person won’t get elected.

7. 47. OldNewComer | December 6th, 2008 at 4:56 am

   davidcdavid64 wrote:

   (Please excuse my spelling)
   By making city employees live in town they ensure all city employees (and many living in the town), will vote for bad government.

   I agree on that one especially. Such policies are sold to voters as ‘keeping the spending at home’ but in fact it’s designed to maintain a constituency of workers, their families and friends who will reliably support certain politicians in return for higher staffing and compensation. One recent joke is the idea of more firmly enforcing that rule to cut costs, when it should in fact be repealed altogether. It’s a basic fact of municipal political life anywhere not just Hoboken: the interests of city workers and of taxpayers are naturally opposed.

   It’s part of the bigger issue of city policies which make it ‘easier for lower income people to stay in Hoboken’ (not that *all* city workers are lower income, obviously), which in simple practical terms is sustaining a voting constituency naturally opposed to reform. It isn’t about those folks being bad people or taxpayers being bad people not to want to pay high taxes, but again just a fact of life: you can’t have efficient govt when there’s a large high turnout constituency whose self interest is mainly in high municipal spending. Some suburban towns not that far from here have reasonably good govt: the people who vote mainly have a self interest in that, not a self interest in high spending. You have to somehow break that chain temporarily, then make the changes which over time change the voting demographic and make the lower spending policies self-sustaining. One simple (though not necessarily easy) start would be ending the requirement that city workers live in town.

8. 48. CalGard | December 6th, 2008 at 12:34 pm

   At the City Council Meeting on Nov 17, Councilman Russo suggested:

   * Firing all employees who live outside of Hoboken
   * Firing all recently hired provisional employees
   * Eliminating seasonal employee positions
   * Unspecified demotions

   Russo said “81 employees could be let go immediately,” along with 23 seasonal employees.

   On the surface, this has a certain appeal at a time when property taxes are soaring. However, it is just possible that the majority of this group are among the best employees the city has. We do need to cut expenses in a smart way so as not to destoy widely supported city services. I support hiring the most people to work for the city (including those not living in Hoboken). I also support a fair performance appraisal system for city employees so that the city has the necessary records to dismiss non-performing employees. Finally, where job requirements permit, let’s hire part time workers with wages and benefits commensurate to the private sector.

9. 49. truth1 | December 6th, 2008 at 1:03 pm

   Performance should be the criteria for retention; however, the current ordinances should be followed. If they are not in the best interest of the City, such ordinances can be changed. Not enforcing laws is tantamount to not having them at all. Enforce or change! The fiscal monitor can help with guidance in this area. Of course, State Civil Service provisions override any local ordinance and cover the majority of employees and this area is being handled with the assistance of the NJ Dept. of Personnel. The local ordinances are the duties of the city council (now due to state supervision, with the advice and consent of the fiscal control monitor). Hoboken needs positive change in the right direction so that our future elected and administrative officials can get things right

10. 50. CalGard | December 6th, 2008 at 2:13 pm

    A more enlightened Hoboken ordinance that allows non Hoboken residents to work for the city, and one that requires fair performance measures to ensure we retain our best employees is entirely consistent with NJ Civil Service Policy (11A:1-2).

    The Legislature finds and declares that:

    a. It is the public policy of this State to select and advance employees on the basis of their relative knowledge, skills and abilities;

    b. It is the public policy of this State to provide public officials with appropriate appointment, supervisory and other personnel authority to execute properly their constitutional and statutory responsibilities;

    c. It is the public policy of this State to encourage and reward meritorious performance by employees in the public service and to retain and separate employees on the basis of the adequacy of their performance;

    d. It is the public policy of this State to ensure equal employment opportunity at all levels of the public service; and

    e. It is the public policy of this State to protect career public employees from political coercion and to ensure the recognition of such bargaining and other rights as are secured pursuant to other statutes and the collective negotiations law.

11. 51. OldNewComer | December 6th, 2008 at 2:20 pm

    CalGard wrote:

    At the City Council Meeting on Nov 17, Councilman Russo suggested:

    * Firing all employees who live outside of Hoboken
    * Firing all recently hired provisional employees
    * Eliminating seasonal employee positions
    * Unspecified demotions

    However, it is just possible that the majority of this group are among the best employees the city has.

    Again the idea is to fire the employees who won’t be part of a second generation Russo political machine because they and their friends and families can’t vote, and to protect the more senior higher paid jobs while getting rid of the cheapest people.

    Yes the residency law must be changed immediately not ignored, and in general the council has to start *now*, changing other rules to allow more efficient govt, insofar as possible. And that’s what we have to elect in May, people who will change those inefficient rules. If state laws or contracts limit that in other cases, so be it, but there’s no NJ law saying Hoboken workers have to live here.

    Hoboken is an expensive place now, not really suitable for many people in public sector work, but it should be up to them where they live. It’s also not reasonable to have any city spending, direct or indirect (affordable housing set asides for city workers, who do you think pays for that in the end, developers? that’s a laugh, taxpayers do) to subsidize people who could just live elsewhere. The golden goose that supports the Hoboken city govt ‘busines model’ is now in the ICU.

12. 52. CalGard | December 6th, 2008 at 2:50 pm

    With city elections in May, the planks of the candidates platforms must SPECIFICALLY address issues that face all Hoboken residents. This includes having the best possible employees in key city jobs, an equitable valuation of property assessments and a fresh look at existing and potential PILOT agreements that have shortchanged city revenues at the expense of many unhappy renters who live in those buildings. With old ‘newcomers’, new ‘newcomers’ and voters who believe that ‘Change’ is possible in our government we have an extraordinary chance for a better future. I agree with OldNewComer’s ideas:

    OldNewComer wrote:

    Again the idea is to fire the employees who won’t be part of a second generation Russo political machine because they and their friends and families can’t vote, and to protect the more senior higher paid jobs while getting rid of the cheapest people.

    Yes the residency law must be changed immediately not ignored, and in general the council has to start *now*, …..

13. 53. matt_72 | December 6th, 2008 at 3:05 pm

    OldNewComer wrote:

    CalGard wrote:

    At the City Council Meeting on Nov 17, Councilman Russo suggested:

    * Firing all employees who live outside of Hoboken
    * Firing all recently hired provisional employees
    * Eliminating seasonal employee positions
    * Unspecified demotions

    However, it is just possible that the majority of this group are among the best employees the city has.

    Again the idea is to fire the employees who won’t be part of a second generation Russo political machine because they and their friends and families can’t vote, and to protect the more senior higher paid jobs while getting rid of the cheapest people.

    Yes the residency law must be changed immediately not ignored, and in general the council has to start *now*, changing other rules to allow more efficient govt, insofar as possible. And that’s what we have to elect in May, people who will change those inefficient rules. If state laws or contracts limit that in other cases, so be it, but there’s no NJ law saying Hoboken workers have to live here.

    Hoboken is an expensive place now, not really suitable for many people in public sector work, but it should be up to them where they live. It’s also not reasonable to have any city spending, direct or indirect (affordable housing set asides for city workers, who do you think pays for that in the end, developers? that’s a laugh, taxpayers do) to subsidize people who could just live elsewhere. The golden goose that supports the Hoboken city govt ‘busines model’ is now in the ICU.

    I’d rather fire Hoboken employees that live inside Hoboken b/c I don’t like the idea of Hoboken residents who work for the city voting for people like Roberts who promise them fat paychecks & no show jobs that the rest of us pay for. There is a massive confict of interest b/w city workers and city taxpayers.

14. 54. matt_72 | December 6th, 2008 at 3:16 pm

    What the F wrote:

    FYI-Marine View Plaza built 1975.
    Words cannot explain my thoughts. Other than hiring all his friend$$$. Can someone explain to me what a mayor of hoboken actually does.

    Outsource work to companies so his friends on the city payroll don’t have to work…….

15. 55. truth1 | December 6th, 2008 at 3:32 pm

    Major issues should be addressed during the campaign and reasoned decisions made on who to vote for. However, the major point is that after the election, the public must to see to it that our elected officials provide the proper management…don’t fall asleep, keep informed, continue to go to meetings and meet with your leaders. We all have to have a fiscal eye, all the way

16. 56. manolo | December 6th, 2008 at 6:53 pm

    Matt somehow that statement #53 makes me sad because a homegrown worker cares more for their city ( don’t use Hoboken patronage and nepotism mill as an example tho)and should have housing to accommodate them. I guess a more socialistic approach.

    Stay tuned for the Hoboken Manifesto

Pages: « 1 2 [3]

You must be logged in to post a comment.