Author Topic: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue  (Read 172223 times)

Offline 07601bergen

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« Reply #270 on: May 05, 2013, 04:39:56 PM »
As a concerned member of Prospect Avenue Coalition, I was invited to and attended some of the Meet the Candidates events, sponsored by many Prospect Avenue hi-rises, where the candidates seeking election to the City Council presented their positions on a number of critical issues.

I also attended a followup residents discussion group last week. Many who attended indicated that they wanted to decide on which candidates to vote for and were looking for subtle insights from other attendees which they could consider in reaching their voting choices. The future of the LTACH litigation was overwhelmingly the group's primary concern. For this monumentally important reason, all present thought that we could best demonstrate our positions and strength by voting for a unified selection of candidates.

We felt that a mixed slate, rather than a single slate, fit the bill to achieve the overall group's ideal view of all that needs to be achieved. A mixed slate offers a combination of skills, ability, concern, understanding and personality which is best suited to tackle Hackensacks upcoming and midterm issues regarding LTACH and other issues.

It would behoove those whose predominant concern is the LTACH to truly understand which candidates will tirelessly fight the LTACH fight till LTACH is out of options, and feel comfortable with how these candidates plan to keep money allocated to this budget item to its conclusion. If the incoming slate is solely concerned with high litigation costs and cutting budgets, this slate may just decide that the LTACH litigation cost is excessive and does not merit any further City involvement. THIS MEANS THAT THE COST OF LTACH LITIGATION WILL FALL ON PROSPECT AVENUE OWNER/RESIDENTS. It has been suggested that unless we have a HALF-MILLION $$ to spend we might as well save the pittance in hand and brace ourselves now. Sell your property for what you can get now. Surely, our property values will plummet when the LTACH is built.
Members of the Prospect Avenue Coalition have reviewed the candidates websites and mailings.  After much introspection and thought, digging deeper than most, each of us present has a strong opinion as to which candidates may best serve our needs. The option detailed below is one you may wish to consider:

#1 John LaBrosse
#3 David Sims
#7 Jason Nunnermacker
#9 Joseph Barreto
#10 Scott Young

In closing, Anthony Palmieri (Excelsior III and PC Air rights litigation) just purchased land at 593 Summit Avenue, and just may be waiting to see what happens with the LTACH appeal.   

Hackensack residents NEED TO VOTE. EVERY VOTE COUNTS.  PLEASE TELL YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS. This will send a clear message to current or future developers, that we will protect the zoning rights that have been established to make Prospect & Summit Avenues and surrounding areas the wonderful residential communities they have become.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2013, 06:02:40 PM by 07601bergen »

Offline regina

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
  • Karma: 8
    • View Profile
Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« Reply #271 on: May 05, 2013, 10:23:46 PM »
I think this post should be under the Election thread because it seems to endorse specific candidates. The rest of Hackensack may be interested in the opinion expressed and reasoning for it.

Offline Editor

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4413
  • Karma: 17
    • View Profile
    • Hackensack Now
Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« Reply #272 on: May 05, 2013, 10:40:18 PM »
The post now appears in both topics.

If your reply is more about LTACH, reply here.  If it is more about the election, reply there: 2013 Election.

« Last Edit: May 05, 2013, 10:45:09 PM by Editor »

Offline regina

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
  • Karma: 8
    • View Profile
Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« Reply #273 on: May 05, 2013, 11:21:36 PM »
Are Prospect Avenue residents aware that there are other issues in this election? NOBODY wants the LTACH. The Prospect Avenue group has hired their own attorney to represent their interests and I believe the motion to intervene has been granted. Any good zoning attorney could step in and get up to speed in a heartbeat. Right now Joe Zisa is making preparations (at taxpayer expense) for a smooth transition on this issue.

I'd like to know if your suggested candidates were by consensus, or if this is your own opinion. I ask this because you wrote:

"After much introspection and thought, digging deeper than most, each of us present has a strong opinion as to which candidates may best serve our needs. The option detailed below is one you may wish to consider"

It is not clear to me who is endorsing these candidates, or why.

Offline just watching

  • Long-time poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 928
  • Karma: -24
    • View Profile
Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« Reply #274 on: May 07, 2013, 04:14:06 AM »
I agree that it makes sense to keep Joe Zisa and the Special Counsel/Zoning Board attorney involved in the litigation for the reasons stated by the Prospect Coalition.  If Zisa is no longer retained as City Attorney after the election, he could be hired by the city to continue the litigation on this matter.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2013, 04:21:14 AM by just watching »

Offline regina

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
  • Karma: 8
    • View Profile
Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« Reply #275 on: May 07, 2013, 08:07:32 AM »
I am not sure what manner you believe I addressed you in. I asked if Prospect Avenue residents are aware that there are other issues in the election. You did answer that by stating that for some Prospect Avenue residents there are no other issues in this election. Thank you.

I did request that post by 07601bergen be posted in the election thread. At first the editor did not think it needed to be and then he decided to put it in both places. I think he made the right call. It belongs in the other thread because it is related to the election and the election affects ALL city residents, not just Prospect Avenue. Most residents of this city are concerned with what happens on Prospect Avenue. It is not an island, it is part of the city. What happens in any one part of the city most certainly has an effect on other parts. I too think voters should be informed. I also think voters should vote with their heads based on all the facts and with regard to the city as a whole.

As I am not a member of the coalition, I was not privy to the information gleaned at the Prospect Avenue candidates nights. Since a recommendation was made that would affect those who are not part of the coalition, I thought other residents would be interested in an explanation as to why those candidates would be the best choice. Maybe there is something you know that the rest of us do not.

I did not speak with Joe Zisa one on one. I do not call him because he usually charges the city for telephone calls. He stated at the April 23 council meeting that he is in the process of transcribing the minutes of those zoning meetings. Maybe I wrongly assumed that in this digital age it would not be on paper. His statement was in response to a resident's question and seemingly in order to make a smooth transition on this issue. Of course ALL taxpayers are paying the bill for that.

Prospect Avenue residents have retained their own counsel for this issue. A resident of Prospect Ave has ties to that firm. I think the LTACH concerns are pretty well represented on this issue, both by the city and on their own. The rest of Hackensack should also be concerned as it affects us. The Prospect Avenue residents should also be concerned about the rest of the city, as it affects them too. The audience for this thread is the entire city, as well as some non-residents.

I do not believe that my post was misleading and erroneous. I hope I clarified that here. Most of the residents of Hackensack have been behind you in your fight. I simply thought, as it will have an effect on the rest of us, an explanation as to the recommendation would better inform those who are not part of the coalition. I guess you disagree.

Again, voters should vote with their heads. It is their vote, their voice.

Offline regina

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
  • Karma: 8
    • View Profile
Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« Reply #276 on: May 08, 2013, 07:41:09 PM »
Now I am confused. Two different endorsements have been put forth by members of the Prospect Avenue Coalition.

At least this letter attempts to explain, but the statements therein are misleading and erroneous.

Misleading:
The council member who is seeking re-election has also fought hard against this project, not only the four who are leaving. Remember, the fact that those four appeared before the Zoning Board is one of the points in the appeal.

A member of Citizens for Change also lives on Prospect Avenue.

Other candidates have also pledged to fight this project and address quality of life issues.

Erroneous:
The negative campaign with personal attacks is being run by Open Government and their mailings are proof.

TWENTY YEARS AGO Mrs. Canestrino was only named as a plaintiff in her husband's personal injury case for spousal reasons. She never appeared in court and the Judge's statement is taken out of context by Open Government in their mailing.

To suggest that Mr Labrosse bought his car with taxpayer money is ludicrous. He bought the car THREE YEARS BEFORE his wife's case was settled. Remember, Ex-Chief Zisa sued her. When asked, not one member of Open Government said they would allow such a photo of them to be distributed. Yes, it was that bad.

Fact:
The legal costs to the city for Prospect Ave have been under $25,000. That is a minuscule part of the $6,000,000.00 spent for legal fees, mostly for matters involving the Ex-Chief.

Citizens for Change has shown the connection between Open Government and the machine that has been running the city. Anyone who thinks that is negative must be part of the machine. They have also questioned the integrity of one candidate for the allegation that he stole their signs, as well as the fact that his running mates seemingly stand behind him, no matter what.

The Prospect Coalition seems to be of two minds. Each voter should make up their own mind based on their own choice.

I believe Citizens for Change has a clear plan as is outlined in their platform and it addresses many issues, not just open government issues http://hackensackcitizensforchange.blogspot.com/p/function-togglemeavar-edocument.html#.UYrWFqKG2So The 10 point plan of Open Government does not address taxes, redevelopment or quality of life issues.

Also to be considered when any endorsement is given is what the person giving it has to gain.

Offline regina

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
  • Karma: 8
    • View Profile
Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« Reply #277 on: May 09, 2013, 02:09:52 AM »
Excuse me, but your tone could be dialed down a notch or two. You act like I am crashing some private party. My tax dollars, my home, my child's future are on the line here too. I care about Hackensack. That is why I go to council meetings. I never saw any member of Open Government at a council meeting before they decided to run for office. Have I seen you?

My statement "of 2 minds" is in reference to the difference of opinion posted in this thread with regard to the "suggestion" for whom votes should be cast. There is not a unified coalition if we have read two suggestions, so far.

People should vote based on accurate information. It is inaccurate to state that one slate is negative when the other slate is perceived as negative by the majority of people who have seen their mailers. I find it interesting that you do not find the Open Government mailings (car & court) to be negative. They are full of half-truths, innuendo & personal attacks.

The Hackensack Citizen contained REAL stories reprinted from the Record newspaper. If you have a problem with the TRUTH of those stories take it up with the reporter. Facts are facts. The negative campaign is being run by Open Government. That is a fact that anyone can see. Who is accused of stealing signs? Who used a confidential Board of Education list for a political mailing? Who did not give the residents of Hackensack enough consideration to even answer the Record's questions themselves? Open Government did it. Nobody made any of that up. Sometimes the TRUTH is ugly.

I do not know how my caution as to who is giving an endorsement can be taken as negative campaigning. I am not running for office. Nor am I getting paid to represent any party. And I am not holding any appointed or elected position within the city. Endorsements from anyone in any of those circumstances ought to be looked at in that light.

Finally, your thinly veiled threat that my posts "will only cause an increase in calls asking if a more unflattering picture could be found" is more negative than any comment I have made and absolutely inappropriate.

Offline HackRes

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« Reply #278 on: May 09, 2013, 01:35:21 PM »
Response to: 07601bergen on May 05, 2013, 04:39:56 PM
Quote
Members of the Prospect Avenue Coalition have reviewed the candidates websites and mailings.  After much introspection and thought, digging deeper than most, each of us present has a strong opinion as to which candidates may best serve our needs. The option detailed below is one you may wish to consider:
#1 John LaBrosse
#3 David Sims
#7 Jason Nunnermacker
#9 Joseph Barreto
#10 Scott Young

First, a general thanks to the Prospect Avenue Coalition (PAC) for organizing the "Meet the Candidate" nights and the follow up discussion meeting. Both were key in helping me getting a better sense of what each candidate can offer our city, and what affect they will have on LTACH. 

As a member of the PAC, I have always appreciated their tireless dedication to defeating the LTACH and their thorough vetting of candidates. A split ticket gives us the best from both slatesa stronger option than choosing one slate over the other.

What made the difference for me personally, was the focus by some candidates on litigation costs and budget cuts. It is imperative that the town council we elect keep money allocated to this budget item to its conclusion.

Additionally, I'd like to add that attendees at the discussion meeting were vocal about keeping the City Attorney, Special Counsel and Zoning Board in place.

Considering all these issues, I think a split ticket is the best option and will be voting for:
#1 John LaBrosse
#3 David Sims
#7 Jason Nunnermacker
#9 Joseph Barreto
#10 Scott Young

As a united group, we can make a difference in this election.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 02:02:05 PM by HackRes »

Offline Victor E Sasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
  • Karma: -21
    • View Profile
Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« Reply #279 on: May 09, 2013, 03:36:31 PM »
I don't think such a 3-2 City Council is workable, not much will change and property taxes will keep on rising.

The Prospect Avenue Coalition should be aware of rumors that [Deleted by Editor. This is not a rumor mill. What Vsasson stated should be easily verified if he takes the time to do it. He can also post it on his own blog.]
« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 03:52:55 PM by Editor »

Offline regina

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
  • Karma: 8
    • View Profile
Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« Reply #280 on: May 09, 2013, 05:25:33 PM »
I question the exclusion of any of the female candidates.

I have heard of a 3rd proposal by Prospect Avenue residents. Great! No matter where you live in the city, you should make up your own mind when you cast your vote.

Offline Victor E Sasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
  • Karma: -21
    • View Profile
Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« Reply #281 on: May 09, 2013, 06:57:37 PM »
More censorship by Albert H. Dib.

Offline HackRes

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« Reply #282 on: May 10, 2013, 10:44:47 AM »
Response to Regina (Reply #283 on: Yesterday at 05:25:33 PM)

I did consider Maria Colon. I've been following your posts and I'm surprised you would push for her since she's been serving on the planning board for over 20 years and I know you are looking for a change. But that is your prerogative.

Personally, I felt the other candidates had stronger credentials.

Offline regina

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
  • Karma: 8
    • View Profile
Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« Reply #283 on: May 10, 2013, 02:21:47 PM »
Hackensack council candidates answer question from public during forum
Friday, May 10, 2013
BY  JENNIFER VAZQUEZ
NEWS EDITOR
Hackensack Chronicle

HACKENSACK Dozens of city residents congregated inside The Camelot apartment building to hear from the council candidates vying for the five seats on the governing body.
 



BERNADETTE MARCINIAK/STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER
City council candidates took time to answer questions and voice their stance on certain issues, during an event, on April 29, organized by Prospect Avenue Coalition. Jeff Mullarckey, top right, moderated.
 

The Prospect Avenue Coalition organized the April 29 event, asking candidates various questions that dealt with the proposed Bergen Passaic Long Term Acute Care Hospital, taxes and the citys future. Prospect Avenue Coalition formed to oppose the construction of the acute care facility.

The company behind the proposed 19-story LTACH sued the city in November over the denial of its application. The applicant wanted to demolish homes on Prospect and Summit avenues to construct the facility.

Candidates for the Coalition of Open Government, Citizens for Change and independent candidate Victor E. Sasson, all stated their opposition to the project. However, their positions on other topics were not as unanimous.

All slates had varying opinions when presented with the fact that the city spent $6 million in lawsuits brought on by police officers against the Police Department and yet only $22,000 was spent on LTACH hearings, according to moderator Jeff Mullarkey who posed the question how each slate planned to fight the LTACH appeal.

"[There was] $22,000 spent and we got a 5-0 decision," said Coalition for Open Government slate candidate Jason Nunnermacker, who is a current Board of Education member. "I say you got a pretty good deal. In all honesty, you will have to spend money on attorney fees. Thats just the way it is... But I am very, very confident well win and if the city only spent $22,000 that is a great thing."

According to Sasson, while he thinks Hackensack will win the appeal, the important thing is for the city to have a competent attorney representing the case.

Kathleen Canestrino, who answered this question on behalf of the Citizens for Change slate, believes budgeting is necessary.

"The key to anything is to budget for it," Canestrino said. "Budgeting is not a year-to-year plan. It is a three- to five-year plan. Therefore, what is budgeted on any given year, is not a surprise. It is part of a longer plan. Rather than examine each lawsuit and classify them individually, the current council has one size fits all when it comes to [lawsuit] payouts [involving police officers]. We need to budget our money."

All the slates also answered whether or not they will keep the same LTACH and city attorneys.

Former zoning board attorney Richard Malagiere, who was head of the LTACH case, resigned after code violations on one of his rental properties came to light following a fire that displaced families.

Current city attorney Joseph Zisa is part of the Zisa family and political legacy within the city.

Addressing the crowd, Nunnermacker said he would keep Malagiere, but the slate was still uncertain of Zisa.

"If elected we plan to keep the same LTACH [fighting] team in place through end of term," Nunnermacker said. "Why? Malagiere should be captain of the ship if he is willing to. He did a great job. And if he is on board with continuing the fight he should. As for Mr. Zisa. It would be irresponsible of me, and [the slate] to say one way or another because we do not have the full information to make this decision."

Citizens for Change had a similar view when it came to Malagiere.

"I would not allow Malagiere to take any further cases but at the same time I would not like to jeopardize the LTACH case so Im willing to keep him on that case but with a co-counsel," Canestrino said.

Sasson vehemently opposed the rehiring of either attorney.

The recent city approval that aims to hire Class II officers, was also a topic of discussion with both Citizens for Change and Sasson agreeing it was a great way for the city to save money while still having the force necessary to patrol the streets.

Kenneth Martin, a candidate under the Coalition for Open Government and retired police officer, did not agree.

"If elected, we will look into this program with [Police Director Michael] Mordaga," he said. "Having Class II officers worries me because they are not fully trained and they are carrying guns around, interacting with our youth. These Class II officers will not just be from Hackensack. They can come from any other place."

According to previous interviews with Mordaga, Class II officers will receive the same training as full-time salaried police, including passing the required physical and psychological evaluations. However, Class II are paid hourly, do not receive benefits, and are required to turn in their guns at the end of their shifts.

Toward the end of the event, Mullarkey asked if the Coalition for Open Government slate, viewed by many as the "Democratic Party," has close ties to Lynne Hurwitz, and received contributions from her.

"All of our [contribution] reports are online," Nunnermacker said. "They are accessible through njelect.com I do not know if she has been supporting us. On behalf of myself, if [Hurwitz] supports our slate, thats great. Im here tonight asking about the 50 people present for their support as well."

According to The Record, Hurwitz was a key strategist behind former police chief Ken Zisa and a dominant force in the citys politics.

Replying to Mullarkeys question, Sasson said he will be able to work and collaborate with either slate if elected.

When asked, Labrosse said that working at Hackensack University Medical Center will not effect his voting and answered concerns over the fact that he was covered under two insurance policies one being the citys.

"I am afraid that I might be fired from HUMC as a result of a vote," he replied as to why he had insurance with the city. "But I never filed one claim with the city of Hackensack."

The event was one of a handful of Meet the Candidates nights presented to residents of Hackensack.

"I wanted to see their stance on LTACH," said Tom Lydon, of Hackensack, when asked why he came out to hear the candidates. "I want better for the town I live in Our schools need work. There is so much friction on the school board. I am hopeful that this city will turn around."

Maxine Soren, of Hackensack, was also optimistic of the citys future.

"I want to see Hackensack rejuvenated," she said. "You have to vote and be hopeful of a change. So well see."

Elections take place on May 14.

Email: vazquez@northjersey.com

« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 02:34:26 PM by Editor »

Offline Prospect Avenue Coalition

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 172
  • Karma: 8
    • View Profile
Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« Reply #284 on: May 15, 2013, 12:46:40 PM »
43759

ProspectAvenueCoalition would like to congratulate the Citizens for Change slate for winning yesterday's election. We are confident you will honor commitments made during the election to defeat the LTACH and look forward to an open government with free flowing information. We also wish you success on addressing the many other issues that affect our city from development of downtown to lowering taxes.

 

anything