Please find below a letter from Councilman Jim Doyle (plus some GA visual aids).
"Dear GA and Readers,
I have served with both Ravi and Michael DeFusco on the City Council. Since many have asked, I would like to share how they are different, and why I firmly believe that Ravi is the best choice for Mayor of Hoboken.
First, Michael has vastly less experience. He has served on the City Council for less than two years. Ravi on the other hand, has served on the City Council for 8 years, two of them as City Council President. He is ready to be Mayor on Day One.
During Ravi's eight years, he served twice as the City Council President and worked hand in hand with Mayor Zimmer to first lower and then keep municipal taxes stable, to secure the $230 million Rebuild by Design grant that will protect Hoboken from future flooding, and to help save the City's hospital, over 1,000 jobs, and to avoid a $52 million bond default by the City. These are all complex, City-wide issues that Ravi faced.
In Mike's less than two years on the council, he has gained no such experience. He began his mayoral campaign after just one year on the City Council. If you read his literature, you will see very few accomplishments; he has, however, floated lofty ideas without demonstrating a full understanding of how to finance them or turn them into reality.
Second, and perhaps a more concrete example (pun intended), is that Michael has consistently voted both on the City Council and before that on the Zoning Board for development that is out of scale with the charm and character of the Hoboken many love. During his years on the Zoning Board, developers could count on an affirmative vote from him for variances in use, height, and density.
On the council, he joined Jen Giattino in voting for a 29 story hotel on the Hoboken waterfront that would be the second largest building in Hoboken. Ravi and I were the only City Council members who voted against that out-of-scale project because, while we are fine with an appropriately scaled hotel there, we do not want Hoboken to become another Newport City. The voting records, not the rhetoric, make clear that Hoboken has a real choice on the issue of future development.
Third, Michael does not have the temperament to be Mayor. (you have to watch this clip...)
Michael has spent his time on the City Council dais constantly attacking his Council colleagues and burning bridges. He claims that he has a "demonstrated ability to bridge political divides and get things done", but there is no evidence to support that statement. In fact, as someone who serves with him on subcommittees, I have not found him to be effective or collegial. But you don't have to believe me. As a Mayoral candidate, more than any other candidate, Michael has unprofessionally maligned his opponents throughout his campaign. In contrast, Ravi remains calm under pressure, and he works professionally and diligently with everyone.
Sincerely,
Councilman Jim Doyle"
"Dear GA and Readers,
I have served with both Ravi and Michael DeFusco on the City Council. Since many have asked, I would like to share how they are different, and why I firmly believe that Ravi is the best choice for Mayor of Hoboken.
First, Michael has vastly less experience. He has served on the City Council for less than two years. Ravi on the other hand, has served on the City Council for 8 years, two of them as City Council President. He is ready to be Mayor on Day One.
During Ravi's eight years, he served twice as the City Council President and worked hand in hand with Mayor Zimmer to first lower and then keep municipal taxes stable, to secure the $230 million Rebuild by Design grant that will protect Hoboken from future flooding, and to help save the City's hospital, over 1,000 jobs, and to avoid a $52 million bond default by the City. These are all complex, City-wide issues that Ravi faced.
 |
| DeFusco opposes Rebuild-by-Design: "we don't need a flood wall" |
In Mike's less than two years on the council, he has gained no such experience. He began his mayoral campaign after just one year on the City Council. If you read his literature, you will see very few accomplishments; he has, however, floated lofty ideas without demonstrating a full understanding of how to finance them or turn them into reality.
 |
| DeFusco has no understanding how to implement or pay for his high-falutin' promises |
Second, and perhaps a more concrete example (pun intended), is that Michael has consistently voted both on the City Council and before that on the Zoning Board for development that is out of scale with the charm and character of the Hoboken many love. During his years on the Zoning Board, developers could count on an affirmative vote from him for variances in use, height, and density.
 |
| He talks pure bullshit about historic preservation and maintaining Hoboken's character. His record on approving multiple variances for a single application speaks for itself. |
On the council, he joined Jen Giattino in voting for a 29 story hotel on the Hoboken waterfront that would be the second largest building in Hoboken. Ravi and I were the only City Council members who voted against that out-of-scale project because, while we are fine with an appropriately scaled hotel there, we do not want Hoboken to become another Newport City. The voting records, not the rhetoric, make clear that Hoboken has a real choice on the issue of future development.
Michael has spent his time on the City Council dais constantly attacking his Council colleagues and burning bridges. He claims that he has a "demonstrated ability to bridge political divides and get things done", but there is no evidence to support that statement. In fact, as someone who serves with him on subcommittees, I have not found him to be effective or collegial. But you don't have to believe me. As a Mayoral candidate, more than any other candidate, Michael has unprofessionally maligned his opponents throughout his campaign. In contrast, Ravi remains calm under pressure, and he works professionally and diligently with everyone.
I hope this information, born of experience, helps you as you make your choice on Election Day.
Sincerely,
Councilman Jim Doyle"
Excellent letter. Not surprisingly Jim nailed it. If Jim is the Council's heavy weight, Mike is its empty suit light weight. All flash, no substance.
ReplyDeleteWe didn't just set our clocks back this weekend, we get to time travel with Mike because he seems to think he's able to change facts about how he voted and behaved in the past. Since the crew working hard to get this anxious twerp elected, it seems likely from what we know about past elections and the players, that he would be the one to benefit the most from any vote buying or voter coercion. If that strategy works, then what?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDeFusco, Cammarano, Occhipinti and many others, allegedly all underwent the late Maurice Fitzgibbon's tutelage for eager young men with political aspirations. It gives the concept of "pay to play" a whole other meaning, and for Cammarano and Occhipinti, things did not go well in the end, and things tend to happen in threes.
DeleteSpeaking of differences... Here's something you haven't seen yet in this campaign: a correction to a negative post.
ReplyDeleteSomeone on HCV calling himself "Your Predecessor" made a long and earnest comment about the Giattino campaign receiving $10k from Sal Starace's union.
An exciting bit of intell for the last day of the campaign, especially after the daily PacMan floggings. But "Your Predecessor" has it wrong. While the campaign did indeed receive just under $14k in donations from 3 unions, including a whopping $10400 from Starace's sheetmetal workers, it dutifully refunded all but the permissible $500 per union as can be seen on p19 of the October 12th filing.
This then is a correction to a potentially damaging but ultimately incorrect negative post. I have corrected it on HCV as well.
You may safely assume that you will never see a retraction or correction or amendment to any of the boundless defamatory statements, spinning, and outright lying that have come from the GiaFuscos. Amazingly, they manage to pair these with complaints of sexism, homophobia, outing commenters. And yet more amazingly, pair those with sexism, homophobia, and outing commenters. Outing, personal details, snark about attire, mental cruelty: We all know exactly who wrote that one.
So be it. We ain't them. We have other ways of winning. We can even afford to admit mistakes.
See you all tomorrow.