E.D. on next Council Agenda (oh boy...)



Never a dull moment in Hoboken politics- especially 40 days out from a highly-contested election.

Today, Mayor Zimmer issued this statement:
The City was recently able to meet with the property owner of Union Dry Dock. Following the meeting, Union Dry Dock sent a letter advising the City that it is not legally able to even discuss a sale of the property to the City of Hoboken at this time.
As a result, the City Council will be asked to authorize the use of eminent domain for the acquisition of Union Dry Dock at next week's City Council meeting. The authorization simply provides the City with the tools necessary to facilitate negotiations and does not mean that eminent domain will be implemented. However, without this authorization, the City has no ability to even begin negotiations given the position taken by Union Dry Dock.
Okay...

The question is: can anything substantive get done at a Council that's split into (4) competing political campaigns? 

Those are (1) Team Giattino (Jen Giattino, Tiffanie Fisher, Peter Cunningham), (2) Team DeFusco (Mike DeFusco, Ruben Ramos), (3) Team Romano (Dave Mello, Mike Russo) and (4)Team Bhalla (Ravi Bhalla and Jim Doyle).

GA says "No".

Because we saw the utter shitshow Team Giattino, Team DeFusco and Team Romano created over  a simple contract renegotiation. Yeah, simple.  $40M in benefits to Hoboken, including forgiveness of our $8.3M contingent liability.

Team Giattino, Team DeFusco and Team Romano blew up that deal simply because the Mayor negotiated it. That's the truth.

So then, what can we expect them to do with the Mayor's request for permission to use the "tool" of Eminent Domain?

Giattino, active in Republican Party politics (Mitt Romney delegate at the 2012 National Republican Convention, John Kasich candidate for the 2016 NJ delegation)  may have an ideological issue with using eminent domain here, like she did with the Southwest Park in 2011. 

Remember her first instinct was to vote "no" for acquiring land in southwest Hoboken.


But, it is election season so... who can predict if Giattino will abide by Republican Party doctrine.

DeFusco, the performing seal, will whine "what took so long!" while looking down at his Blackberry... 

Expect one Council member lament "we need more information."

For the record, as much as I love DeFusco's pool- party fantasy, it doesn't feel feel good giving Hoboken's last maritime business the boot- unless they agree to sell the land at a fair price.  According to the city, without the 'tool of eminent domain, it cannot proceed to negotiate the sale of the property with Union Dry Dock.

Again, our Council members (excluding Bhalla and Doyle) have shown that they cannot put the interest of the City before their own electoral ambitions.  Let's see how this goes.


Here's a little history on the site from hMAG:
"The 3.15-acre parcel of land houses the Union Dry Dock & Repair Company, the last functioning maritime business on Hoboken’s once-bustling working waterfront. Since 2000, the property has been for sale.... 

Union Dry Dock opened in 1908 in Weehawken (even serving as a setting for a music video by the band Blondie in 1979). The company bought the Hoboken property in 1976, moving operations there in the 1980s. Previous efforts to sell the land have fallen through. In 2001, the Stevens Institute of Technology planned to construct a soccer field on the site. In 2005, there was a $15 million contract for the property, but the buyer backed out. In 2009, a developer hoped to build residential towers on the land, but local zoning didn’t permit it. And in 2012, New Jersey Transit considered obtaining the land for NY Waterway’s ferry maintenance and refueling."

Comments

  1. Then , why did Ravi recuse himself from voting on the Suez water deal ? If his interests were 100 % on hoboken residents and not on his political ambition .. and if (as per him ) there were no conflicts of interest .. he should have voted !! Especially if that deal really benefited all of us .. but he didn't vote..
    Didn't he say he didn't want THAT to create confusion on voters ? I see an example of electoral ambition there ..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many of the people citing alleged "electoral ambition"/aspiration to higher office as a strike against Ravi are the very same people who used that as an argument in their support of Cammarano, that he was guaranteed to do a good job in Hoboken because he would want to wield his tenure here as an argument for his elevation to higher office. This is what's known in really technical political-jargon terms as "hypocrisy," and quite prevalent in the serial-operative class.

      Delete
    2. Well, HO ask your partner, who made such a big stink (press release, facebook posts, choreographed real-time council theatrics) that Ravi thought to err on the side of caution. Which has nothing to do with "political ambition" but protecting the city from frivolous lawsuits to challenge any votes he made post-stink. Get it?

      Delete
    3. Is the cheerleading squad for half-term-and-move-up Mike really thinking of complaining about excessive political ambition?

      Delete
    4. Wouldn't it by hypocritical to say that Ravi is the one with electoral ambition when he is the only Council member running for mayor that would actually complete his term in elected office. Both Giattino and DeFusco are not planning on finishing out their terms as 6th and 1st Ward Council members respectively if they happen to win.

      Delete
    5. Ravi refused to protect the city from frivolous lawsuits ? .. I think that's the way this administration works.. evidence # 2 .. Zimmer wants eminent domain on the Deck .. let's see how this goes .. another 10 years and $$$ wasted before we see a pop up water park

      Delete
    6. I said the opposite, HO. Ravi recused to protect the City from potential frivolous lawsuits-- like the kind your partner had filed against Stick Romano. Now get back to work and stop drinking on the job.

      Delete
    7. You do your job well for once and stop overdosing on xanax and seroquel

      Delete
  2. Bottom line I see no sense of urgency on this and denotes lack of common sense .. she may destroy relationships for whomever has to deal with this in the near future .. I'm sure it can wait 4 months .. it took her 10 years to pave Washington st

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. New to town, Ho-beauken-doubt? You clearly know nothing about why Washington Street wasn't repaired sooner, and if Union Dry Dock is speaking to others, four months is too long to wait. It will be interesting to see how DeFiasco votes on this, as without Union Dry Dock's property, his wet dream of a pool there can't cum true.

      Delete
    2. Hi Wart-acle.. poor administration.. poor planning .. lawsuits and bonding bonding bonding .. how about that .. glad Ravi got us a pool at the toxic pop up park .. the place floods and it's meant for resilience?!!

      Delete
    3. It sounds like they are talking to someone else or already have a private deal in place. Probably appropriate to plant the flag on ED and make it clear, no frigging condos will be allowed, no way, no how, it ain't happening.

      Delete
    4. Ho-beauken-doubt, the lawsuits are a perennial ploy of the old guard's, whenever they want a pay day and can convince some shyster to take their bogus case, and don't expect that to stop even if DeFiasco gets elected. The other perennial complaint is the tired "bonding" drum-beat. The old guard members of the council liken it to a credit card. It's clear that you, and they, are too stupid to understand why and when a city would bond for capital improvements, and that until Zimmer straightened out the financial mess she inherited, our bond rating was in the sewer, like the one her detractors crawled out of. Your screen name and your posts reveal your disdain for our city, so when are you leaving?

      Delete

Post a Comment