City Council Meeting 2/17/2010

2/17/2010:

More of the same…

Five hour+ meeting last night…

  • Angelo Andriani still getting paid (despite what you have been told by City Hall)
  • No tax decrease coming…
  • Apparently, by the lack of widespread protest, 99% of residents don’t care that the city mismanages your tax dollars.

Here’s 60 pages of resolutions that wasn’t made available with enough time prior to the meeting…

See archived videos and chat after the break…

What? $16.5 Million in bonding?

Straight out of the Dave Roberts playbook are two items on tonight’s Hoboken City Council Agenda$12 Million in bonding for the collapsing Sinatra Park field, and $4.5 Million for the early retirement fiasco.

Some Hoboken residents say “just condemn the damn field, we just don’t have the money to fix it.”

Curiously enough, the resolution pack wasn’t available to the public as of this morning. Way to go, City of Hoboken!

SEE ARCHIVED VIDEO AND CHAT AFTER THE JUMP…

(City Council 2/17/2010, continued…)

Video and Chat Archive

Archives of video and non-sugar coated chat from the 5+ hour meeting of February 17, 2010.

CLICK TO EXPAND AND VIEW EACH SECTION
[slider Group=A title=”2/17/2010 Council Meeting Part One“]

[/slider]
[slider Group=A title=”2/17/2010 Council Meeting Part TWO“]

[/slider]
[slider Group=B title=”HOBOKEN411 COUNCIL CHAT ARCHIVE“]

[/slider]

Leave a Reply

61 Comments on "City Council Meeting 2/17/2010"

matt_72
Member
I finally get your problem Watchmaker. You are judging Zimmer based on how people who grew up here would behave. Sorry, she & most of the folks I know who support her didn’t grow up around here so they won’t behave like the folks you are used to supporting. Maybe that is why folks like me like her, she isn’t from around here so she didn’t grow up as accepting of the antics you like to vote for. And your last statement proves how little you know. If you paid attention to legalities, you would know that the city didn’t issue any bonds for the hospital. The city issued a guarantee. The hospital authority issued the bonds, we backed them. The hospital authority spent the money, Hoboken didn’t. And the hospital authority had the right to spend money whenever they wanted without having to pass through the city council for permission to spend that money once they issued their bonds with our backing. So as soon as that guarantee was approved, the city immediately was on the hook for backing those bonds for the hospital. Unlike the hospital situation, the mayor can’t do that. Unless the city council has completely turned over their authority authorize the expenditures to the mayor, Zimmer can’t hire anyone to rebuild the pier so we are not on the hook for anything right now. That comes later (and if you could comprehend what read you would know I said that multiple times) and when that… Read more »
Watchmaker
Member
Watchmaker
Having a conversation with you is like a Martian talking to a Fungo 🙂 Actually, this is really getting pretty funny: matt_72 said This is no different than getting a line of credit after I said It is indeed common … to issue debt … to establish a line of credit. And another beauty: matt_72 said we will see if $12mm is enough, I am not convinced b/c every wooden piling in Hoboken … probably needs to be replaced after I said one would have to remove the whole old wooden base and then dig the same metal pylons as for Pier C into the ground. Hey matt, are you trying to plagiarize me. 🙂 matt_72: Nobody issues bonds for no reason and with no plan. It depends on what you mean by plan. Roberts sure had a plan for the hospital, but that does not mean that the plan was any good. Also, sometimes official plans have nothing to do with real plans, as in the case of the municipal garage sale. matt_72: And I am no municipal bond expert but last time I checked, when bonds were issued for a specific purpose and the money is earmarked for that purpose in an ordinance, it can’t be used for something else at the whim of the mayor. You did not grow up around here, did you? Well, I don’t have time to get into this one, but believe me: creative financing is no stranger to Hoboken mayors, especially when… Read more »
xyzpdq
Member
xyzpdq

I appreciate the fact that matt_72 posts here because it gives me insight into the minds of our Mayor’s inner circle. This is the same group of people who protested whenever David Roberts pushed to borrow money through bonding with no plan. Now they’re defending Dawn Zimmer’s move to borrow money through bonding with no plan!

At the risk of becoming the latest target for matt_72’s apparent lack of joy in his life, I’ll be the latest to note he often contradicts himself. First he tells us bonding for $12 million for the river isn’t spending money, then he tells us bonding for the hospital was spending money. Bonding is borrowing with the intention to immediately spend it. You don’t borrow money with no intention to spend it. It costs money to borrow money (check your mortgage if you don’t agree) and this pier project is going to cost us a ton.

I’m sure matt_72 will be there years from now to defend the Mayor when the project is predictably behind schedule and over budget. That’s just the kind of guy he is.

matt_72
Member
Wow – you folks not only don’t read, you don’t even know what you are complaining about. Maybe I should have been more clear. Maybe I should have explained the difference b/w authorizing bonding & actually issuing bonds. Sorry, I didn’t think I actually had to do that. I also didn’t think I had to explain the ordinance to anyone, clearly I do given Watchmaker’s post. I see now I expected too much from some of you. Or is the problem that none of you actually read what you are complaining about? Even if the bonding ordinance were to pass tomorrow, that doesn’t mean the city is borrowing $12mm for the repairs immediately thereafter. All they are doing is AUTHORIZING THE BONDING & specifying the use of the proceeds for the repairs (double DUHHH!!!). They might not borrow the money for many months and why would they if they don’t expect to need to use it? You are all right, you don’t actually issue the bonds when you don’t plan on spending money but AUTHORIZING the issuance of bonds is not issuing bonds just like borrowing money doesn’t equate spending money. It just means you intend to ultimately spend it, but doesn’t at all mean you did borrow the money, spend the money or even have to spend all the money. These are all distinct acts, but if you do one, that doesn’t mean you absolutely have to do the next one. Perhaps you folks don’t understand the difference, but… Read more »
Watchmaker
Member
Watchmaker
I have to agree that matt_72 adds a lot of entertainment value to this venue. I am also glad that I am not the only person here who notices his/her inconsistencies. For those readers remotely interested in this discussion, here are a few points: 1. It is indeed very common for a corporation to issue debt (corporate bonds) to fund a project or operational expenses, or simply to establish a line of credit. However, xyzpdq makes an important valid point: it is common sense that you borrow money right when you need to spend it, since otherwise you are paying interest on unused funds. I believe this is the point of misunderstanding: matt_72 thinks it’s OK to issue debt without knowing any details, the rest of us disagree. Why do we need to issue 12m now? We certainly don’t need 12m sitting in the bank while the city makes plans and hires contractors for a year. Plus here in NJ we are more than likely to tempt a politician to spend the bond money fixing the budget gaps, or on side projects; but I digress. 🙂 2. I finally figured out why matt_72 claims that the city had announced who was hired to do the due diligence on this deal. He/she is referring to the engineering firm of Remington & Vernick hired to advise the city way back when the pier collapsed. But he/she is disingenuous: the firm was never mentioned again, so we have no idea, for example, whether… Read more »
Night Watchman
Member
Night Watchman

Matt, can you really be this dumb and have written this sentence?
“you do understand that when you issue bonds you are borrowing money, right. That means you are raising money, not spending it.”

So borrowed money isn’t spent money? That $52 million dollar bond for the hospital was just “raising money, not spending it.”

Matt, step away from the Zimmer kool-aid.

matt_72
Member

Yes – that is exactly what that $52mm bond was. It was raising money for the hospital. Then the hospital turned around and spent it funding operating losses and capital expenditures. That is what happens when you raise money, you eventually spend it………DUHHHHHH!!!!! Another person who wouldn’t know a bond from a hole in the ground.

In response to Night Watchman who said:
Matt, can you really be this dumb and have written this sentence?
“you do understand that when you issue bonds you are borrowing money, right. That means you are raising money, not spending it.”

So borrowed money isn’t spent money? That $52 million dollar bond for the hospital was just “raising money, not spending it.”

Matt, step away from the Zimmer kool-aid.

matt_72
Member
You do understand that it is not uncommon for businesses & state & local governments to line up funding (even if it is only preliminary funding) for major projects BEFORE hiring a contractor, right? We find out what the pier costs when we formally solicit bids. We then talk about spending the money when they go about the process of hiring a contractor & prior to accepting one of those bids. How complicated is all this? Are you really this clueless? Do you really think anyone is spending $12mm on anything w/o running it through the CC, without a RFP or any sort of discussion at all? Bonding isn’t spending money, it is lining up funding. Jeez, I know a few of you don’t know a bond from a jackrabbit but you do understand that when you issue bonds you are borrowing money, right? That means you are raising money, not spending it. And you can’t spend it or even think about spending it until you have a source of financing. That is all they are doing. Everything you are complaining about that you want to happen or you want to know about comes next. I repeat, how complicated is all this? And as I said before, if you want the frigging docs, go ask for them. One of those releases on the city website you cited tells you who was hired (if you actually read it which clearly you didn’t – and I won’t post it here b/c I… Read more »
wpDiscuz