Karen Nason: proud Republican

Karen Nason filed 420 petitions yesterday at Hoboken City Hall 

Folks may (or may not) agree with Hoboken mayoral candidate Karen Nason, but this gal doesn't run from who she is and what she believes, just because it may not advance her political objectives.

If you ask her who she voted for, she won't hem and haw- she'll tell you.

Don't like it?  Go f*ck yourself.

GA respects that.  Nason is not a candidate who tells you what you want to hear.  She tells you what she thinks, and why.

If Nason had DeFusco's dough, she'd clean the floors, ceilings and windows with him, then toss him in the garbage.  But she doesn't. So, Nason has to be judicious with how she spends her campaign dollars.

She's put out a professional-grade video, posted below. GA appreciates her candor, though as a "Zimmerite"... well, watch it and you'll see!

Listen, the gal has the courage of her convictions.

GA asked her about her national party affiliation, and was delighted not to be treated as though my question were an attack.

Nason told me that her heroes' are GOP Senators Susan Collins from Maine, and John McCain from Arizona.

"Susan Collins has the guts to stand up to an entire senate filled with men, cautiously and carefully thinks about each vote- and John McCain stands up for what he believes in," said Nason.

Karen also is a big fan of Bernie Sanders.  GA asked her why.

"I thought Bernie was a very aggressive, grassrooter who wanted to make a change. He did what he wanted to do... tried really hard to make a difference. McCain is a hero, sticks to what he believes in.  Bernie tried to make both parties like McCain, come together", said Nason.

"Unlike Giattino and Valenti, I'm not running from being Republican" said Nason, "I am proud of it, I can work with everybody."

There you have it, folks.


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. Hey hey, like you GA, it's tough not to have a soft spot for Karen. She seems like a decent person. That said, I got nothing out of this video other than "I'm not Zimmer, I'm a proud Republican, so if you want a change, vote for me." It would have been great to hear where she stands on any issue in this video, even just one issue. All I heard were complaints and no acknowledgement of how far we've all had to work to get where we are 8 years later.

    I will say this, Karen's inability here (or perhaps strategic choice) not to discuss her stand on any issue made me go to her website for the first time (yay) and look up where she stands on issues. Here's what I found: https://www.nasonformayor.com/the-issues. There is discussion of three issues, one of which, education, is out of the Mayor's control since the direction of education in Hoboken sits with the school board. This makes me believe she's really not ready to take on the responsibility of running a city with more than a $100 million budget but no budget to impact schools.

    I have a real soft spot for Karen because of her moxy. The complaints she raises could have merit and I think in some cases are areas for improvement. Maybe I'd support Karen as a council candidate, maybe, but I'd like to see more of a record of engagement on community issues and issues depth from a Mayoral candidate for sure.

    Last note, who would have thought that Zimmer would be perceived by anyone as a "machine"! Ha! I guess us Reformers made it? We've never raised more money than our opponents and have always been completely looked down upon by the County powers that be as a band of insurgents, and in this election will still be out fundraised again. Oh my, the machine! So funny.

    1. i'm in the same camp. total respect for karen, love her willingness to be real but wish there was some substance to her platform. she might be a good, productive addition to city politics in some capacity, but i don't think the top spot of mayor is a fit for her right now. still, i whole-heartedly support and respect her decision to run.

  3. It's interesting to divide up the candidates into the lanes they are choosing for themselves.

    Stick as always is in the born and raised take back our city lane and so far he has that lane all to himself. Ravi is in the Zimmer was a good mayor and we need to keep progress going lane. He has that lane to himself too. . Defusco and Nason share the Zimmer and the zimmerites have scewed up everything they've touched and I can fix it without telling you how (kind of like Trump) lane.
    Giattino's lane seems to be people who call themselves reformers but who for various personal reasons hate zimmer or don't like Ravi (perhaps because of his ethnicity and religion) or just know and personally really like jen, plus Republicans
    who will vote for her based on party affiliation despite her insisting that it's evil for her opponents to even mention party affiliation.

    If you want to handicap the race, consider the size of each lane and how many candidates are in it.

    1. Oh dear! It's the race card rearing its head....because, there's no other earthly reason why Hoboken voters would choose another candidate over Ravi.

    2. That's not what numbers said, Indie. Bigotry is on the menu of reasons why some would not choose Ravi. Other prejudices may hurt other candidates. Some Dems will not vote for a Republican. Some misogynists won't vote for a woman. Some anti-Semites won't vote for a Jew. Oh yes, whisper campaigns about Zimmer's Judiasm were spread during both of her campaigns, and in between- ask around. Some took their anti-Semitism public at HHA meetings, the City Council and on FaceBook. Remember "GA's Family Tree"?


      What numbers said it fair comment, and I agree.

      In fact, the first thing I thought of when I was repeatedly told that Ravi was "unelectable" was his turban. That is what I thought of, whatever the "unelectable" comment meant.

      I am just thankful to see that most of the candidates are running a positive campaign. Let's hope the voters assess the candidates on their ideas.

    3. I think the turban is the basis for a lot of the "un-electable" comments. I know people say "I don't mind, but I think the broader group will." Perhaps that's true, or perhaps the naysayer also minds and is afraid to admit it.

      People can say, "I don't like Ravi because he did XX or YY" and that's legitimate and outside of my above statement.

    4. Anything is possible. That was my own thought.

  4. has jen yet articulated 1) how her reform political beliefs are different/better than ravi's and 2) which "wrong direction" of the zimmer administration she will change, and how?

    if so, i haven't heard or seen it yet. most of what i've seen/heard regarding jen's campaign is lots of crazy horseshit that people tell me about from another local blog, which to the outside world has stepped into jen's communications void and become her campaign's mouthpiece.

    indie, since it seems like you support jen (apologies if i'm mistaken), perhaps you can point us to specifics as mentioned above. Links would be great. i admit to currently prefering ravi but am openminded enough at this early stage to hear all candidates out and change my support if warranted. thanks.

    as an aside, it's naive to think race/religion and political party affiliation have no impact on how people vote. candidates and their supporters may want to live in a politically correct bubble where those factors don't come into play, but (unfortunately) voters don't.

    1. hi me: I'm not a spokesperson for Jen so it wouldn't be appropriate for me to state how her positions are better than/differ from Ravi's or which of previous policies she would change/improve and how. I'm not trying to dodge your question, I agree that it's early days and things along the way may change peoples' minds. I'm completely open-minded on the city council slates since so many of them are newbies without a track record.

      I have my reasons for supporting Jen's candidacy and my view on why her positions are better than Ravi's, but my opinions are not a substitute for Jen's policy positions. Sorry I can't be of more help.

    2. thanks for your thoughtful reply, indie, that makes sense. in many ways, we're both in the same boat: we have early preferences but there's still lots to hear and understand from each mayoral candidate and council ticket for the open-minded voter.

    3. We're almost in the 3rd week of August, the early campaign days are over and we're pretty much in the mid/prime part of the election. If in the next week or two a candidate hasn't presented a couple significant policy ideas to differentiate themselves from the pack they will probably miss the chance to move to the front of the pack and win.

    4. You're welcome, me

      FAP - To me, the real campaign season starts after labor day - however, on any given day a candidate may win someone's vote or lose it. Most of the cc candidates haven't shared anything about their personal views, by your logic we can welcome Jim Doyle and Dave Mello back to their council seats and Kurt Gardiner will join them.

    5. @FAP, i seriously doubt more than 100 people in town know anything about any mayoral or council candidate at this point. ravi got a bit of a head start the past few weekends with the table outside his campaign office, chatting with people, etc., but i haven't noticed any other mayoral candidates out and about (and certainly no council candidates).

      general voters might have a vague idea of an upcoming election but they don't pay attention until september, and candidates gain traction in october (that, as you say, is "mid/prime part of the election") when they're out shaking hands, placing ads, having rebates, etc. i have to believe local elections are barely a two-month ordeal for non-obsessives/insiders like us. ;)

  5. Does she ever not wear that black dress? In the picture, in the video and everywhere she goes she wears that one dress and that one pair of black boots. Disturbing. I hope she changes her underpants

    1. Not very nice. If you looked in my closet, I've got so many black schmatas your head would spin. I wear a lot of black. Ever consider she just has a bunch of black dresses?

  6. In a post above Indicom writes that because she is not an official spokesperson for the Giattino campaign she is not in a position to explain why she thinks Giattino is different/better than Bhalla on issues.

    Indie - you don't need to be an official spokesperson to explain your own thinking and you would be a much more effective advocate for Jen if you were able to articulate why you think Jen is a better choice than Ravi and the others on the issues, particularly given Jen's notable silence on the rent protections referenda as compared to Ravi's (and the Mayor's) strong public advocacy in favor of rent protections (that likely was the difference between winning and losing.)

    You would also be a more effective advocate if you didn't traffic on MSV in self serving untruths (like the false claim that Mayor Zimmer forwarded around the "Mitch letter" and strange theories about the mayor feeling threatened by other women like Marsh, Giattino and Fisher.

    1. numberscruncher - you'd be a much more effective commenter if you didn't traffic here with blatant untruths. I never said anything about the "Mitch letter" (email actually) although I did receive it. It was offensive to say the least. I don't know who forwarded what to whom for it to land it in my inbox. I'd like to think that Dawn and Vijay (who were the original TO: parties) replied to Mitch expressing how offensive the email was.

      Nor have I expressed any theories about how the Mayor feels threatened by other women...although I've heard many people in Hoboken suggest that. As theories go, I've heard worse, but I cannot take ownership of it.

      I'm not going to turn this thread into a rent control thread - suffice to say, both the Mayor and Ravi took the position supporting tenants against MSTA and Ravi shared with me that he took some heat from his base for it...(seemed like he was annoyed at me for the heat that he took). I don't know how Jen voted, I've never asked (and she keeps her votes to herself) but she did stay silent on the matter. I could take a guess, but that's all t would be.

      With all of that said, I wouldn't characterize either Ravi's support or Dawn's as particularly "strong"; to do so, would be a fallacy - but, we were still very appreciative. There's, of course, much more to say, but that's for another outlet. But, to suggest that pro-rent protections won only because of Ravi and the Mayor were on the "no" vote with the tenants is laughable, insulting and terribly narcissistic.

      One more thing - I assure you, Numbers - I'm perfectly capable of articulating my reasons for supporting Jen and for not supporting Ravi. I'm not sure if it occurred to you, but, Grafix Avenger's blog is a pro-Bhalla site, and as such is really not the appropriate venue for criticism of Bhalla.

    2. Indie, I believe you did accuse Zimmer of sending the so-called Mitch email on MSV. Recall reading that on Roman's site. Don't care to argue it. Numbers appears to have read the same thing. As for being a "pro-Bhalla site", I am a site that is trying hard to be fair to everyone. I am not perfect. IAt the same time, this site is opinion and commentary and I am an advocate for people and issues I support. I have always been. As for you saying why you do/don't support Jen/Bhalla, the topic here is Karen. There will be posts about why I support Ravi instead of Jen, but not at this time. When that's a topic, by all means express yourself.

  7. Indie I apologize. The post on MSV that included the lie that the Mayor forwarded around the Mitch letter and the insane rant about being threatened by other women was written by that lunatic hatfieldmccoy. I was mistaken in thinking the post was yours.

    If you don't believe the mayor and Ravi'd support made a critical difference in a vote that close then you're frankly letting your hate for Zimmer interfere with your capacity for rational thought. And it is simply a fact that Jen and Mike DeFusco took no public position on an issue you claimed was of critical importance to you and the city.

    I'm sure you are fully capable of explaining why you support Jen (and previous support for DeFusco) based on her (and his)actual voting record and publicly stated positions on issues as compared to Ravi and others but the fact remains that you have so far not done so.

    1. Taking Numbers' word for it. I apologize too, Indie.

    2. Apologies accepted Numbers & GA - memory is always a little funny - I get that & appreciate your correcting the error.

      On the other thing - to be clear, in every election EVERY vote counts so, as I said before we (HFHA) were very appreciative of everyone that spoke out in support of rent protections and against the MSTA initiative. That included the Mayor and Ravi. (there's a letter in the H.R. and video at a cc meeting of me expressing just that.) Michael DeFusco wasn't on the city council during either of the MSTA votes, so I wouldn't expect him to have taken a public position on the matter; Tiffanie wasn't on the city council either and, thus, did not have a public position as well. Jen, as I stated above, did not take a public position that I'm aware of. If memory serves, the council members that took a position with us were Ravi, Dave Mello, and Terry. Can't remember anyone else saying much (Jim wasn't on the cc yet, but he was on the campaign trail during the repeat vote and also supported the "no" vote and, for the record, although not the most supportive of rent protections, Kurt Gardiner was also public about being on the "no" vote.

      I realize that MDF is not well liked by the commenters on this blog and I've already shared that I had cordial conversations with him in a response to a comment by Stan Grossbard a week or so ago. I'm not going to disrespect someone who was very respectful to me and I have nothing further to say on the matter.

      GA: so noted as to when you have a thread about Jen or Ravi - I wasn't commenting on fairness, I don't think support for, and fairness to, are mutually exclusive; I was just trying to be polite.

  8. Thanks for the thoughtful comments Indie. Interesting that Jen did not take a position which is in fact taking a position since neutrality is a choice. Do you know why Jen did not take a position publicly? I am assuming you and others approached her? What was her reason for choosing to say nothing when we urgently needed people to speak out?

    1. I don't know why Jen never took a public position, All Hoboken. Perhaps she was too busy trying to assist the half dozen senior citizens that Stevens was trying to displace around that time. Don't know if you ever heard about that one; it's just one of the many horrifying displacements that that have been going on over the last 5-8 years. At least a couple of them were in their 90s. I think one of them passed away during the protracted period of time the the situation was in play.

      I'm sure you've read about how, in the case of seniors, displacement is so traumatic that it can actually lead to death. I know that Jen spent a lot of time trying to ensure that all of the seniors were ok, securing pro bono assistance and checking in with them while the process was working its way through the negotiation/representation process. She was relentless about seeing that they were protected and all of the surviving tenants were comfortably placed in housing situations that they were happy with.

      I don't think it was because she was busy assisting the 74 year old protected tenant with stage 4 cancer who's new condo owners where trying to lob a $1400 hardship increase on him in order to get him to vacate his apartment; that was more recent. Have you heard about that one? Thank God Jen took the time to comfort him during such a difficult time, since attempts to get help from the Mayor's office (by his sister and Brian Stack) were ignored. Really horrifying situation. I don't know if that gentleman is still alive, but, at least I know that he was able to stay in his home and he had an attentive representative concerned and proactive.

      Or perhaps she was busy trying to keep the developmentally disabled tenant in his 50s who was being displaced when his mother (who was the one on the lease even though he had lived in the apartment since he was about 9 years old) went into a nursing home. Jen worked with HFHA and NJ Tenants Organization on that one. It's a shame that the city wasn't more proactive with tenant crisis' because, by the time Jen intervened it was too late to help him. He's gone now. Really sad situation.

      Serving constituents, especially ones that need assistance during emergencies such as these is time consuming. Perhaps Jen was preoccupied.

  9. That was I really interesting list of people's positions or no positions on the rent protections referenda but it doesn't answer the question.

    Jen took no public position on the referenda and according to you won't even disclose how she voted because her vote is private.

    You were clear at the time that you considered passage of the referendum to be virtual armegeddon for our city.

    Do you believe that it's OK for someone who wishes to be the leader of our city to have abdicated her responsibility to lead at such a critical moment? Do you support her position that her position was and is private and none of the voting public's business? If so would you have supported a decision by Mayor Zimmer to abdicate her leadership responsibilities in the same way? Somehow I think not.

    You still have not named a single item from Jen's voting record or public positions that you feel makes her better than her opponents. I hope eventually you think if something and share it.

    Lastly, you considered supporting DeFusci despite his long publuc record virtually entirely inconsistent with your long stated public positions on issues supposedly important to you. Answering that question should not involve disrespecting Mike so your reference to that is quite strange.

    What is it about Mike that caused you to consider not only supporting him but running on his ticket, despite his long process development history on the ZBA and the Council? Did he change his views? Did you? Or was your potential support based on something else that you prefer not to discuss?

    1. My my, so worked up Numbers! Are you sure you don’t want to have a conversation about Karen Nason? It might help you to calm down.

      For the, I don’t know how manyeth time, I don’t know how Jen voted on the MSTA initiative. Would I have liked for her to take a position against it? Of course. But, I have a question for you:

      Do you think that supporting the tenants (the “no” vote) in 2012 & 2013 is a conclusive reason to never lift a finger to address the issue of affordability and displacement again?

      You are a little focused on 2 events 4 & 5 years ago while displacement has steadily ramped up in 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 without a word or action from the administration. I think that’s called that ‘resting on your laurels'

    2. whoops - just noticed the final little comment about my suggested support for Micheal DeFusco being based on something that I "prefer not to discuss," is there anything in particular you are suggesting, numbers? You mean like a job? I know there are always rumors about this sort of thing. I heard one recently about Ravi and the position of Library Director, but I dismiss these things as rumors.

      To be clear - Michael DeFusco never promised me a job, a condo, money, or anything else nefarious that you might be suggesting. What he said to me was that a voice for affordability and displacement was missing from the conversation and he thought it was an important perspective that needed to be heard. He's actually right about that - affordability and displacement has almost no place in the list of the current administration's priorities.

    3. OK let's move on from Jen's abdication of leadership on rent protections (which you can't being yourself to even reflect upon) to her supposed leadership on displacement issues.

      Please identify one legislative proposal put forward by councilwoman Giattino to address the displacement crisis you refer to.

      She's been a Councilwoman for 6 years. Can you identify a single policy initiative she has proposed that would cause you to forgive her silence on the rent control referenda?

      I'm not aware of any but I'm sure if they exist you could provide a description and a link.

    4. Sigh - this is getting tiresome.

      I guess you don't pay much attention, Numbers, so here goes. There was the The Clock Towers extension (don't know if Jen was the actual sponsor, but she was one of the cc members involved with crafting it); The CLT resolution; The resolutions for a tenant advocate (attorney non-attorney) - There were 3 cc members involved in those - Jen, Jim and Tim. Jen was also one of the two cc members (her & Jim) involved recently with the property owner that wanted to sell their property to the city to be the first property in the city's CLT. (Due to inaction on the part of the administration, that opportunity passed us by.) And as recently as the last cc meeting she pulled the 4-year extension for using an affordable housing unit as a market rate rental. I'm guessing the intention is to find a better solution since a 4-year extension is actually a permanent removal of an affordable unit by another name. (Don't know how that one is going to turn out and the folks at metrostop have certainly been through a horrible ordeal, but just kicking the market-rate can down the road (as the administration wants to do) is not an appropriate solution for anything other than eliminating an affordable housing unit.

      Truth be told, it's not that easy to get things done with a disinterested administration that appears to believe they've already done enough to address affordability & displacement, because, heck - they supported the tenants in 2012 and 2013 against MSTA. How ungrateful of me to disagree that, with ongoing and unattended displacement going on in town, that 2012/13 support is enough!

  10. I would like to say something, hopefully thoughtful, about the discussion at the top of this thread on the idea of Ravi being "unelectable" which shows up on Roman's blog.

    First I should say that I agree with the sentiment, if I'm interpreting Indie's comment correctly, that the bigotry should not be raised lightly. If there are concerns about unfair bias, they should be raised with some level of gravity.

    This brings me to the idea, brought up most, maybe exclusively on Roman's pro-Jen blog, that Ravi is unelectable. I have called that "coded language" but I never shared why. Here is why:

    1. Dawn Zimmer is a popular Mayor with high approval rating across all polls;

    2. Somewhere between 85 to 90% of likely voters believe Hoboken is a great place to live;

    3. A popular Mayor has endorsed a 2 term City Councilman most associated with her and she's actively, publicly campaigning for him;

    4. The Bhalla and Mason polls (have not see Romano's just heard about it and don't trust what they would share), not surprisingly has Ravi ahead of the rest;

    5. Ravi thus far seems to have the best campaign organization in place. He's out there every day working hard as per his admittedly promotional but yet insightful social media, he has a headquarters, staff - including an excellent field director, a very active Council slate, support from a large and varied number of active people around town, and maybe most importantly is inheriting the Mayor's past campaign supporter lists. He is also seriously fundraising;

    In this context, why would someone say Ravi is unelectable? That's why I call it coded language. It should stop.

    1. Over at MSV calling Ravi unelectable because he's a Sikh is not racism just political realism. But saying Jen is unelectable because she's a republican in an overwhelmingly democratic city is a betrayal of the cherished no partisan nature of our elections.

      What's truly sad is that this is genuinely a sincerely held self righteous view.

      There is no intellectually coherent explanation for holding these two views simultaneously.

      Of course it also reflects complete ignorance about the role/relevance of party affiliation in non-partisan elections.

      I don't actually think coded racism is at the core of what does appear on it's face to be coded racism. I think it's intellectual dishonesty driven by ambition, a sense of entitlement and frustration about the reality that the real world is quite different than the one imagined in the echo chamber where it was truly believed that Jen was so wildly we'll know and popular that she could have mounted a credible challenge to mayor Zimmer and in which she was urged to do so.

    2. I'm not sure who is saying Ravi is unelectable - in a crowded field with a winner take all voting structure (so dumb! so foolish! Thanks Ravi, Stan and Dawn for spearheading this back in 2012) anyone could win. (I'd also suggest that MSV, as with GA is trying to be fair and is including information on all candidates. Perhaps, like GA who has indicated she will post future articles as to why she is supporting Ravi and not Jen, he is supportive of Jen and will post articles explaining why at some point)

      With that said and going on the premise that anyone could win with a very low percentage of the votes (fiasco!) My thoughts would be, perhaps whatever popularity the mayor enjoys simply isn't translating to Ravi. I also agree with GA that there are always biases present in elections, but I would take issue with any conclusion that, were Ravi not to win, it's because of racism anymore than if MDF weren't to win would it because of homophobia.

      There are definitely rumors about unproven things that might be taking hold in people's consciousnesses. (i.e. Romano isn't really running, Michael is creating fake FB pages, Ravi's campaign is posting comments in support of his candidacy that have been manufactured, Jen's campaign apparatus is lacking)

      My feeling, on any given day, a candidate can win or lose a vote based on their actions. I've also heard that people "vote for themselves" (i.e. the candidate most like them.) Fascinating the things that cause people to vote the way they do.

    3. Claiming that you haven't heard anybody say Ravi was unelectable or a weak candidate doesn't make it not so. If you didn't hear that your sense of hearing needs some serious work.

      You still haven't explained why you are not concerned about Jen's failure to state a position, much less lead, on the rent control referenda that you considered critical to our city's future.

      It's OK not to be the single issue voter some have characterized you as and to see Jen's other positions and attributes as more important.

      Perhaps casting a meaningless symbolic vote against the 7th and Jackson project was more important to you than the survival of rent protections?

      People are entitled to change their minds and to support candidates for whatever reason they choose. Jen is a truly nice and caring person and you have said she is a close personal friend. That is certainly reason enough for you as an individual to support her.

      But surely you can understand why, without some explanation, your position would seem inconsistent with passion for enhancing rent protections.

      Has Jen committed to you that if an anti-rent protection referendum were to be reintroduced in the future she would fight tooth and nail against it? If she has and you take her at her word will she make that a public commitment to the people of Hoboken rather than a private commitment to you?

      Or would she once again abdicate leadership even as mayor and you are OK with that?

    4. Numbers, I get it, I get it - you're voting for Ravi. Hasn't this thread been pulled off topic enough now?

    5. It's fine that you don't want to answer my questions. You are entitled to support whoever you want for whatever reasons you want and you don't owe me or anyone else an explanation. As we've gone around here over and over, I am entitled to ask questions and you are entitled to answer or not as you see fit.

      I hope you don't mind that I will continue asking. I'm really hoping that at some point you'll provide an honest coherent answer, particularly since its only a matter of time until rent protections are attacked in a referendum again and it would truly be a shame if a Mayor Giattino again took no position as the protections were stripped away.

    6. Sigh, I guess you can't read - I've been answering your questions ad nauseum. I did love the threat at the end there. Nice touch - thanks for letting Ravi's future plans for rent protections slip out.

    7. Indie... keep it real. Numbers' opinion that "since its only a matter of time until rent protections are attacked in a referendum again" is a fair observation. You can disagree. But calling that opinion "Ravi's future plans for rent protections" is malicious, insulting and pure nonsense.

    8. Sigh, Indie. Are you for real? The question I raised pretty much asks itself, and anyone who truly cares about the future of rent protections would be demanding a clear, unequivocal public answer on the issue from all the candidates who, unlike Ravi, did not make their positions known in 2012 and 2013. Without the support of the next Mayor (and the mayor after that etc.) the protections will almost certainly be eventually (and perhaps sooner rather than later) phased out as they would have been without Mayor Zimmer's advocacy in 2012 and 2013.

      Pretending you mistook a very real and obvious potential scenario for a "threat" is remarkably pathetic piece of sophistry.

      I would take Jen at her word if she publicly stated what she would do as mayor if the issue arose again, and I wouldn't hold her past lack of leadership against her since people, including elected officials, should be given the space to evolve and grow.

      I hope she will do so. But the fact that you don't seem to care speaks volumes.

      Have a nice night and a great weekend!

    9. oh that's too rich. Are you actually suggesting that I don't care about rent protections, affordability and displacement? You really must do better with your retorts.

      the bit about how Mayor Zimmer was the sole savior of rent protections in Hoboken is particularly comical. I guess you're intent on adding that to the list of other remarkable things that Mayor Zimmer has single-highhandedly accomplished.

      1) Saving the hospital (all by herself, mind you!)
      2) Saving Hoboken from Hurricane Sandy (all by herself, mind you!)
      3) Putting an end to over-development (all by herself, mind you!) Aside from the PILOTed & largest development structure in Hoboken's history, the Bijou project
      4) Keeping Hoboken taxes stable (all by herself, mind you!) - that 47% tax increase right when she took office had nothing to do with it

      and now we add

      5) Saving rent control (all by herself, mind you!)

      Seriously, I'll never understand why people try to present one single person as some kind of city savior with superhero powers and capabilities. Even the mayor's most ardent supporters must know that the agenda has been narrow beyond what is acceptably healthy and to posit someone in such a way opens them up to unnecessary criticism and is obviously so mythical that it's laughable.


Post a Comment