On Wednesday, Hoboken Patch published a My9NJ interview with Councilman Mike Russo:
|Russo points blame|
Russo tells the camera: "we've been dealing with this issue of not having functional cameras in the city... Mayor Zimmer and her administration have been very reactive in dealing with certain situations in the city of Hoboken...that’s been the problem here in the city of Hoboken."
...contradicting what his cousin Terry told Hudson County TV yesterday...
|Terry was "astonished", tries to "exonerate" Council|
"...we were under the impression that they were still operational... well unfortunately when this individual disappeared, we found out to our astonishment that the cameras were not operational, since 2010... cause I know I didn't know, and I really don't think all the Council people knew, because I think if they knew we would have acted quickly. "
Get your BS straight, Mike and Terry! Which is it?
(A) "We've been dealing with this issue of not having functional cameras in the City, but the tragedies that have occurred in the past few months have exacerbated the entire situation"- Mike RussoHow about neither?
(B) "We were under the impression that they were still operational... well unfortunately when this individual disappeared, we found out to our astonishment that the cameras were not operational, since 2010"-Terry Castellano
What is really going on here? You know what they say: where there's smoke, there's fire.
And a bonfire is raging in that smoke Terry blew on HCTV:
"In 2009 these cameras were proposed... we passed it.. we were under the impression that they were still operational... well unfortunately when this individual disappeared, we found out to our astonishment that the cameras were not operational, since 2010- I believe, at that time the administration decided they were not going to fund the reintroducing of the contract, cause obviously they needed maintenance over the years... and subsequent to Andrew there was two other individuals that drowned, Leprechaun day there was another individual that went over and I believe his friends helped him.. uh, and saved him. .. (edit) that would have helped a lot at least to let us know what happened.. I thought it was a good idea to get something on the agenda... just ASAP, we need those cameras up... the onus is on the administration to find the money...obviously as I always say, there's no price tag to public safety... so I put in a resolution, Councilman Russo and myself, to do exactly that. One thing was to get the cameras, and then I also wanted to exonerate the Council members, because people were saying, and we hear this a lot now, recently: who knew what when. Cause I know I didn't know and I really don't think all the Council people knew. Because I think if they knew we would have acted quickly. Well, um I introduced this resolution at new business, and it was... didacted, from the uh law department. And the next meeting, we had a special meeting the week after, and it was back on the agenda which I was assured it would be, but uh, with very generic, ASAP get the cameras up, and every Council person supported it, and it passed, and I do'nt know why the first one wouldn't pass."Unscramble that mess, and here's what you get.
Terry professes "astonishment" that she did not know cameras were not operational while she professes that "in 2010 the administration decided not to fund the reintroducing of the (camera maintenance) contract." Not only can't both be true, but the part about "not funding the reintroducing of the contract" is gibberish. Introducing a contract is not "funded"- the City Council votes on whether or not to fund a contract. Next... after blaming the administration who she alleges "did not fund the reintroducing of the contract," next states, "I think if they knew (Council) we would have acted quickly..." and submits a resolution that "exonerates" the City Council from responsibility for the lapsed camera maintenance contract.
But, Castellano DID know. Remember, she said, the "administration did not fund the reintroducing of the (camera maintenance) contract."
If Castellano had clean hands, why the need to "exonerate"? Maybe the reason the legal department "didacted" the "exoneration" from her resolution in favor of "generic" language was to cleanse it of tasteless politicization. GA would love to see the original.
Listen folks, this kind of showboating in the wake of a tragedy is politics at its lowest and most cruel.
Who needs these two windbags running to the media to "exonerate" themselves and "blame" a political opponent now?
Clearly, the issue of funding maintenance for security cameras lies squarely at the City Council, not the mayor's office. A little digging would probably show that the funding crashed and burned under the "NO" votes of Russo-Castellano, or was smothered by 2010's City Council President Beth Mason.
Folks, if you really want to know how full of crap Castellano and Russo are about supporting matters of public safety, remember in October 2011 they BOTH voted 'NO' to bonding for critical life-safety repairs to the HPD headquarters. One month later, in December 2011 Russo was the single 'NO' on the 3 million-dollar bonding for repairs to the HPD headquarters, HFD infrastructure needs and equipment for Environmental Services.
"..obviously as I always say, there's no price tag to public safety..."
Yeah right, Terry.
Then how come you and Cousin Mike voted "NO" to repair non-functioning security cameras at the HPD headquarters in 2011?
GA suspects the Russo-Castellano media roadshow is also the roll-out of a campaign issue, tasteless and idiotic though it may be.
Lotsa luck with that.
|Russo's blame-game pours water on Terry's HCTV excuses|